N※N

Maryland Bans 287(g) Agreements with ICE

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2026/02/07/maryland-bans-287-g-agreements-with-ice.html
  Published in House and Home on Saturday, February 7th 2026 at 10:32 GMT by The Baltimore Sun
      Locales: Maryland, UNITED STATES

Annapolis, MD - February 7, 2026 - In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement and community policing, Maryland lawmakers have officially passed a bill banning state and local agencies from entering into 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The legislation, approved late Monday evening after a protracted debate, positions Maryland alongside a growing number of states and municipalities recalibrating their relationship with federal immigration policies.

The 287(g) program, established under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows state and local law enforcement officers to receive training from ICE to identify, question, and detain individuals suspected of immigration violations. While proponents argue the program bolsters public safety by aiding in the deportation of criminal aliens, critics maintain it fosters racial profiling, erodes community trust in law enforcement, and leads to the unjust detention of lawful residents.

Del. Wanika Fisher (D-Prince George's County), the bill's primary sponsor, hailed the passage as a pivotal moment for Maryland's immigrant communities. "This is a victory for immigrant communities across Maryland," she stated. "It ensures that our law enforcement agencies are focused on keeping our communities safe, not enforcing federal immigration laws." The core argument of supporters centers around the principle of local control and the prioritization of resources towards addressing local crime concerns rather than acting as an extension of federal immigration enforcement.

The debate surrounding the bill was fiercely contested, with Republican lawmakers voicing strong opposition. Sen. Michael Hough (R-Frederick County) argued the ban would "tie the hands" of law enforcement and jeopardize public safety by hindering the deportation of individuals deemed dangerous. He warned that the legislation would send a detrimental message to those in the country illegally, potentially emboldening criminal activity. This stance reflects a broader concern among conservatives regarding border security and the enforcement of immigration laws.

The implementation of 287(g) agreements has long been a source of controversy, with numerous civil rights organizations documenting instances of racial profiling and wrongful detentions. Critics argue that the program incentivizes law enforcement to stop and question individuals based on their appearance or perceived immigration status, leading to the disproportionate targeting of minority communities. These concerns have been amplified in recent years, coinciding with increased scrutiny of law enforcement practices and a national reckoning on racial justice.

Maryland's decision aligns with a national trend of states and cities limiting cooperation with ICE. California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have already ended similar agreements, reflecting a growing resistance to the expansion of federal immigration enforcement into local jurisdictions. These jurisdictions often cite the financial costs of participating in 287(g), the potential for legal liabilities stemming from civil rights violations, and the negative impact on community relations as key factors driving their decisions.

The new Maryland law specifically prohibits state and local law enforcement from entering into or renewing 287(g) agreements. However, it importantly clarifies that the ban does not preclude cooperation with federal agencies on standard criminal investigations. This distinction aims to strike a balance between addressing concerns about immigration enforcement and maintaining effective partnerships in combating crime.

Beyond the immediate impact on immigration enforcement, the Maryland ban is expected to spark further debate about the role of state and local governments in federal immigration policy. Advocates for immigrant rights are likely to use this victory as leverage to push for similar legislation in other states, while opponents will likely seek to challenge the ban in court. The future of 287(g) agreements nationwide remains uncertain, but the momentum appears to be shifting towards greater local control and a re-evaluation of the costs and benefits of these partnerships.

The bill now awaits the signature of Governor Emilia Hernandez, who has previously indicated her support for comprehensive immigration reform. Her signature would officially enact the ban and solidify Maryland's position as a state committed to protecting the rights and fostering trust within its immigrant communities.