BALTIMORE — In separate party-line votes Tuesday, the Maryland House and Senate passed legislation to end local law enforcement cooperation agreements with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, fast-tracking two identical bills that have ignited heated debate across party lines over immigration policy and public safety.

In the Senate, 32 Democrats voted for the bill, and 12 Republicans voted against it. In the House, the measure passed 99-40, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

The legislation would prohibit new and existing 287(g) agreements, which allow local police and correctional officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement duties.

The votes came just days after committees in both chambers advanced the bills following hours of partisan debate and a flurry of Republican amendments aimed at carving out exceptions to the proposed ban. None of the amendments secured the three-fifths majority required under Maryland law and were rejected.

Partisan deliberations across the State House

On Tuesday, the final day of deliberations on these bills, House Republicans warned the legislation would undermine public safety and restrict cooperation with federal authorities.

“I’m really disappointed that the solution this body has come up with is handcuffing law enforcement,” Del. Robin Grammer Jr., a Republican representing Baltimore County, said. “The question of what we do with regard to the detention of criminals pending deportation deserves an answer, and this is the wrong solution.”

House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy of Frederick County said the bill targets a “very narrow” program and conflates it with broader national immigration enforcement tactics.

“Ending [287(g) agreements] is not going to solve the problems we’re seeing on television,” Pippy said, describing the bill as “nothing more than virtue signaling to your base” and adding that it comes “at the expense of public safety.”

Still, Democrats countered that the legislation would strengthen public safety by limiting local law enforcement’s role in federal immigration enforcement and rebuilding trust between police and immigrant communities.

Del. Nicole Williams, a Prince George’s County Democrat and the House bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to ensure residents feel safe interacting with police, regardless of immigration status.

“This bill is about the state of Maryland — every single person who lives here — and ensuring that everyone feels protected by law enforcement,” Williams said. “No one should fear being separated from their family after a routine encounter with police.”

Williams also pushed back on Republicans’ repeated references to polling used to justify continued cooperation with ICE, saying the data was being mischaracterized. “The poll that’s been referenced doesn’t even mention 287(g) agreements or explain their effects,” she said. “Using it to justify these agreements is misleading.”

Del. Gabriel Acevero, a Montgomery County Democrat and immigrant of Trinidadian descent, said that protecting public safety does not mean expanding immigration enforcement at the local level, rather ensuring due process and accountability.

“We have laws. We have due process,” Acevero said. “Public safety does not mean deputizing local police to do the work of immigration agents. In Maryland, we won’t be complicit in what we’re seeing nationally.”

Senate deliberation

Across the building, state Sen. Nancy King, a Montgomery County Democrat, argued in favor of ending 287(g) agreements, noting that ICE’s approach to law enforcement could jeopardize the safety of even immigrants without criminal records. She added that Republicans have falsely characterized most immigrants as criminals.

“I have never met one [immigrant] that came to this country to get rich. Most of them are coming here because they’re escaping the oppression in the country they’re coming from. If you’re in that country and you’re desperate, you’re desperate to get your children, your family out of there any way you possibly can,” King said. “So where is the best place for them to be?… These aren’t, these aren’t people that are, you know, out for the big buck.”

Sen. Charles Sydnor, a Baltimore County Democrat, struck a similar tone, quoting a Bible verse often associated with being friendly and welcoming toward refugees. “If a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him,” Sydnor said. “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Senate Republicans, particularly Minority Whip Justin Ready, maintained that coordination between ICE and local jails ensures bad actors are not released back into society.

“If you don’t want more active, visible, intense ICE operations, you should vote against this bill,” Ready said. “They have to do their job. And if they can’t work through documented systems, they’re going to have to bring more people in to get the truly dangerous people. And when they go find a dangerous person in a community and they happen to be living with other people who maybe are not convicted hardened criminals, but are here illegally, they’re going to get them too.”

ICE presence in Maryland

Eight Maryland counties currently participate in 287(g) agreements: Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, St. Mary’s and Washington. Three — Cecil, Frederick and Harford counties — operate under the “jail model,” which authorizes correctional officers to screen detainees for immigration status and contact ICE.

The remaining counties use the “warrant model,” under which officers cooperate with ICE only when there is an active Department of Homeland Security warrant.

Under the agreements, counties may hold detainees for up to 48 additional hours to allow ICE to take custody. The legislation would not bar law enforcement from notifying ICE altogether but would prohibit formal cooperation agreements and require changes to existing ones.

Democratic leaders say the political landscape has shifted since last session, when similar legislation failed. Senate President Bill Ferguson, who opposed the measure last year, has cited increased national scrutiny of ICE operations and the Department of Homeland Security as reasons the bill could pass this year.

While lawmakers in both parties told The Baltimore Sun ahead of the session that immigration would be a top priority during the 90-day term, Democrats have accelerated their push amid a broader national crackdown. The effort intensified following protests in Minnesota, where federal officers have killed two people this year, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and after several ICE detentions in the Annapolis area on Jan. 13, the day before the General Assembly convened.

The fast-tracking of the bills also comes as ICE expands its physical presence in Maryland. One detention facility is operating in Washington County, and a second in Baltimore City has recently drawn scrutiny over cramped and overcrowded conditions. A third facility was slated to be built in Howard County, but the permit for this project has been revoked.

The bills will now be sent to the opposite chambers for consideration. Because the measures are identical, each chamber is expected to pass the other’s version before sending the legislation to Gov. Wes Moore’s desk, which State House leaders say could happen as early as Friday.

_____

—Tinashe Chingarande contributed to this report.

_____

©2026 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.