Recently, Democrat Maryland Governor Wes Moore took a bold step by signing legislation that prevents local law enforcement from forming formal 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This move aims to reduce cooperation with federal immigration authorities, but local sheriffs are making it clear they intend to continue working with ICE regardless of the new law.
At a press conference, Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis expressed his deep disappointment, calling the legislation “the biggest betrayal to law enforcement and public safety that I have ever seen.” He lamented, “This is a sad day for Maryland.” Lewis highlighted the potential consequences of ending the 287(g) program, warning that it will not eliminate ICE; instead, their presence may increase significantly. “In fact, they’re going to intensify their efforts,” he stated, urging the public to take notice of what might follow. This sentiment echoes a growing concern among sheriffs that the legislation could have unintended effects, possibly placing communities at greater risk.
The 287(g) program, which allows local jails to verify immigration status and hold individuals for 48 hours for ICE, has been crucial for many sheriffs who rely on it to maintain public safety. Under the new law, with nine agreements set to end, the immediate impact on how local law enforcement engages with ICE remains to be seen. Yet, in direct response, sheriffs like Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler are already signaling their intent to circumvent the law by continuing to share arrest information with ICE for detainers. Gahler stated, “We’re going to provide ICE with the information of those people we arrest, so that they can file detainers.” This strategy reflects a broader commitment from several sheriffs to uphold their cooperation, despite the legal restrictions imposed by the state.
As Maryland grapples with the implications of this legislation, Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees has reportedly adopted an internal policy that would allow continued collaboration without breaching the ban. The sheriffs’ pushback raises critical questions about the effectiveness of such state laws, especially when local authorities openly challenge them. The concerns are not merely bureaucratic; they center around the very real consequences for public safety and community welfare.
In signing this legislation, Gov. Moore and fellow Democrats framed their actions as a defense of “constitutional rights” against what they describe as “untrained” federal agents. However, lawmakers behind the bill admitted its limitations, acknowledging that they cannot outright bar local law enforcement from working with ICE due to federal supremacy. One lawmaker candidly noted that while they can establish state law to deny formal agreements, they cannot prevent cooperation altogether.
This situation underlines a stark contrast between the aims of some state leaders and the realities on the ground, reflecting a disconnect between legislative intentions and the practical implications of those laws. A letter from Gov. Moore to the sheriffs added clarity, stating that the law does not prevent notifications to ICE regarding the release of individuals of interest, underscoring the law’s lack of influence over how sheriffs choose to operate.
Thus, in Maryland, the battle between state legislation and local law enforcement’s operational autonomy is far from resolved. While the Democrats’ law aims to sever ties with ICE, the commitment from sheriffs to continue their partnerships reveals a determination to maintain their approach to public safety. This ongoing tension may set the stage for future clashes as local, state, and federal priorities regarding immigration enforcement continue to diverge.
"*" indicates required fields
