Maryland Democrats are moving to block local cooperation with ICE while floating a bill that critics say would let the state collect data on federal agents without a warrant.
Quick Take
- Gov. Wes Moore signed HB444/SB245, ending Maryland participation in ICE’s 287(g) jail partnership program.
- Nine county sheriffs say they plan to keep working with 287(g) anyway and are exploring legal challenges.
- HB351 is advancing in Annapolis and would authorize digital data collection involving federal agents; Republicans are pushing a warrant requirement.
- Two additional bills (HB1017 and HB1018) target detention centers through zoning restrictions and higher facility standards.
Maryland Ends 287(g) Cooperation as Sheriffs Refuse to Back Down
Maryland’s Democratic leadership is clashing with local law enforcement after Gov. Wes Moore signed HB444/SB245, a measure that bans cooperation with ICE through the long-running 287(g) program. Under 287(g), local jails can help identify and process criminal non-citizens for possible removal. According to reporting on the dispute, nine Maryland counties had participated, and several sheriffs now say they will continue the partnership despite the new state law.
CONNIE HAIR: Maryland is playing a dangerous game with drug cartels and public safetyhttps://t.co/OT6c0UVnmK
— Human Events (@HumanEvents) February 26, 2026
The standoff matters because it puts state political priorities on a collision course with day-to-day jail operations and the federal government’s immigration authority. The research provided indicates Frederick County has hosted the nation’s longest-running 287(g) program, a fact that underscores how deeply embedded this cooperation has been in at least some local public-safety routines. The immediate uncertainty is practical: how the state intends to enforce its ban if sheriffs maintain cooperation and invite a court fight.
HB351 Raises Red Flags on Warrantless Surveillance of Federal Agents
As the 287(g) conflict escalates, Maryland lawmakers are also advancing HB351, described in the research as allowing warrantless digital data collection involving federal agents. Majority Leader Del. David Moon is identified as a key driver. On the Republican side, Del. Robin Grammer and the Maryland State Freedom Caucus are pushing an amendment requiring a warrant, arguing the bill risks turning state power against federal law enforcement rather than focusing on criminals.
The constitutional concern here is not complicated: collecting digital information without a warrant collides with basic expectations of due process and sets the precedent that government can monitor people first and justify it later. Even when the target is a federal agency, expanding warrantless surveillance invites broader mission creep. The research also notes legal questions raised by critics about intimidation or harassment of federal officers, but the available sourcing is limited to one primary report and does not confirm enforcement plans.
Detention-Center Bills Add Pressure Through Zoning and Costly Standards
Maryland Democrats are not limiting the fight to 287(g). The research describes two additional bills moving in Annapolis: HB1017, tied to Del. Melissa Wells, would restrict detention centers through zoning bans, while HB1018, tied to Del. Vaughan Stewart, would impose hospital-level standards on detention facilities. Supporters may frame these as oversight measures, but the net effect described is to make detention harder to operate in practice.
When detention capacity shrinks, the system’s leverage to hold and remove criminal non-citizens weakens, forcing more catch-and-release behavior or logistical delays. That outcome is the opposite of what many Maryland families want while fentanyl deaths and cartel-linked trafficking remain national concerns. The research references cartel violence in Mexico as a warning about enforcement vacuums, but it does not provide direct evidence tying specific Maryland legislation to specific cartel operations inside the state.
What’s Known, What’s Not, and Where the Fight Heads Next
As of February 26, 2026, the research indicates HB351 was nearing a floor vote, while HB444/SB245 was already enacted and sheriffs were openly signaling defiance. What remains unclear from the provided materials is the exact status of any litigation, the final vote outcomes on HB351, HB1017, and HB1018, and how Maryland agencies would practically implement a ban on sheriff cooperation if counties refuse to comply.
CONNIE HAIR: Maryland is playing a dangerous game with drug cartels and public safetyhttps://t.co/g1epKNCnVv
— Human Events (@HumanEvents) February 26, 2026
For conservatives watching in 2026, the core takeaway is straightforward: states that treat immigration enforcement as a political statement often end up squeezing law enforcement, expanding bureaucracy, and testing constitutional guardrails like warrant requirements. Maryland’s internal split—Democratic leadership in Annapolis versus sheriffs insisting on cooperation with ICE—looks set to continue, with legal challenges and federal-state friction likely to intensify as these bills move.
Sources:
CONNIE HAIR: Maryland is playing a dangerous game with drug cartels and public safety
