MD Senate moves anti-ICE bills closer to the House

Listen to this article

The state Senate debated two bills Thursday that seek to limit both Maryland’s interaction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their officers’ ability to wear masks in the course of duty.

Speaking to both bills at the start of Thursday’s floor session, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair Will Smith, D-Montgomery, said “this is a disorienting time in our politics” — not just people in his district, but across the state.

“I think just the pace of events in the last couple of weeks, Mr. President — from Renee Good to Alex Pretti to a five-year-old, Liam, who was separated from his family now in a detention center. From the Baltimore City detention center and the human rights violations that continue to go on. To masked agents dragging people from their cars and from their homes without a judicial warrant. From families being separated and communities being fractured, what is happening is not sustainable,” Smith said as he addressed Senate President Bill Ferguson, D-Baltimore City.

The Senate first took up Senate Bill. 

Sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Malcolm Augustine, D-Prince George’s, the legislation would mandate the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission to establish a uniform policy prohibiting law enforcement officers — including ICE — from wearing face coverings in the normal course of duty. It would provide carveouts, including for officers who are undercover and in the case of cold weather.

The legislation was amended in committee to make its violation a $1,500 civil citation— an arrestable offense — subject to police discipline. It initially would have been considered a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison or a $2,000 fine. The bill was also amended so that the policy preempts those set by localities.

The MPTSC sets policy for law enforcement agencies statewide.

The bill, if passed, would go into effect Oct. 1.

ICE does not have an agency-wide masking policy.

Sen. William Folden, R-Frederick, noted that Maryland law enforcement is trained under MPTSC policy, while federal officers are not. 

“Would a federal agent be subject to the same Maryland Police Accountability Board, the Administrative Charging Committee — would they be subject to those investigations?” asked Folden, a retired law enforcement officer who argued that ICE officers wear masks at their own discretion.

“No, just the civil citation,” Smith responded.

Folden also worried that Maryland officers would be charged with a “dereliction of duty” if they failed to report masked ICE agents. He said the bill would create issues between Maryland and federal law enforcement by “virtue signaling” instead of enacting policies with tangible results, like requiring all officers — including federal officers — to have identifiable symbols on their uniforms for civilians to pursue recourse.

“The face should not be an identifying factor in any of that,” he said.

Smith responded, saying that President Donald Trump is “weaponizing” ICE in ways that aren’t “sustainable, tenable” or “constitutional.”

“To posit that that level of cooperation would be even possible, I think is just an illogical assumption,” he said. 

Folden also raised concerns about the U.S. Constitution‘s Supremacy Clause, which dictates that the federal government is “free from regulation by any state.” 

Smith said he was “aware of” one attorney general opinion that did not reach a clear conclusion regarding the constitutionality.

Similar legislation passed in California is currently being challenged in the courts. Smith said it was a “pre-enforcement lawsuit,” meaning that it was nearly immediately challenged after Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed it.

“Even I know the Supremacy Clause is going to void this, and I’m not an AG attorney, so when it comes back that way, just remember this day,” Folden, who does not have a law degree, said. “I wish we had a better discussion and tried to partner with our federal partners, because we have a federal relations committee … and we’re not using it.”

Republicans attempted five times to amend the legislation. None were successful.

‘A violation of the Fourth Amendment‘

The Senate also debated Senate Bill 245, which would prohibit local law enforcement from entering into 287(g) agreements, or partnerships, with ICE.

Sponsored by Smith, the legislation was amended ahead of its committee vote to prohibit law enforcement and employees in state-run facilities and local jails from taking actions related to ICE unless a detained individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony, and that data regarding these interactions is made available to the public.

In Maryland, eight counties cooperate with ICE via 287(g) programs. Several employ the Jail Enforcement Program, allowing them to alert the agency when people who entered the U.S. illegally are held in their facilities for breaking state laws. Of those jurisdictions, five — Allegany, Carroll, Garrett, St. Mary’s and Washington counties —  participate in the Warrant Service Officer Program, which allows law enforcement to serve and execute administrative warrants in county jails.

There are other 287(g) models local jurisdictions don’t participate in, including the delegation of certain immigration enforcement powers to local officers.

During Thursday’s floor debate, Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready, R-Carroll and Frederick, asked if the legislation would “eliminate” ICE enforcement or immigration detainers in Maryland.

“No,” Smith said.

“So, does it eliminate the ability of a local police force … to coordinate with ICE?” Ready asked.

Smith responded, saying it limits Maryland law enforcement’s ability to enter into formal agreements with the agency.

Ready said he’s been “frustrated” with misinformation regarding 287(g) agreements, noting that he’s been emailed by constituents who are concerned that their local sheriff’s office is “grabbing” people off the street, which he said “is not accurate” because there is training and funding involved.

He also noted that people captured through the 287(g) programs in Maryland have their information run through a database, where it’s determined they are here illegally.

“ICE doesn’t just go grab anybody off the street, by the way,” Ready said. “There has to be somebody that they have a reason to grab.”

Smith said that people captured through 287(g) programs are often held in local jails on civil detainers without being convicted, which is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Under the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment asserts that people are protected by unreasonable searches and seizures on behalf of the government.

“That person has not been convicted of a crime, they’ve been charged,” Smith said. 

Ready argued that the Fourth Amendment right to due process wouldn’t be violated, because the people in question were determined to be in the United States illegally, which is a crime.

“The Fourth Amendment violation happens when you hold that person past the point which you could for the underlying offense,” Smith said.

In 2025, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation limiting the amount of time people with ICE detainers can be held in local jails to just two days after they have served their sentence for breaking state laws. If ICE officers do not retrieve those individuals within that two-day period, they are to be released.

“For you to hold someone because there’s been a civil ICE detainer put on them, that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Smith, who sponsored the 2025 bill creating Maryland’s current policy, said, noting that, from January to October 2025, Maryland counties with 287(g) agreements were responsible for fulfilling 319 ICE detainers, 67% of which were for people with no criminal convictions.

Smith also debated Ready’s concept of due process under ICE, pointing to its detention center in Baltimore City where he said people are being held “packed in like sardines” with minimal food and sleep.

“That’s what due process looks like right now,” he said. “We have to all ask ourselves, under these conditions in this environment, are we going to be complicit and allow for this? I say no.”

Smith’s bill dodged two amendments from Republicans — but accepted a friendly one offered by Sen. Charles Sydnor, D-Baltimore County, to make the legislation an emergency bill as soon as Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, signs it.

Both Senate Bill 1 and Senate Bill 245 are poised to pass early next week and are likely to be the first two to pass out of the chamber this session.