By MDBayNews Staff
The Montgomery County Council’s unanimous passage of its so-called Trust Act is being framed by progressive leaders as a moral stand against federal immigration enforcement. In reality, it is a legally reckless attempt by a local government to obstruct federal law, blur constitutional boundaries, and dare Washington to intervene.
At issue is legislation that restricts cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, requires judicial warrants for immigration-related activity on county property, and explicitly bars “voluntary” assistance by county officials. Two additional proposals—the County Values Act and the Unmask ICE Act—go even further, dictating how federal officers may access local facilities and even what they may wear while performing federal duties.
Council leaders insist this is “100% appropriate under the Constitution.” That claim does not survive serious scrutiny.
The Supremacy Clause Problem
The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is not ambiguous. Federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding on states and local governments alike. Immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal function, repeatedly affirmed by Congress and the courts.
While states and counties are not required to affirmatively assist federal enforcement—a principle clarified in cases like Printz v. United States—they are equally prohibited from actively interfering with it.
Montgomery County’s legislation crosses that line.
By conditioning access to public facilities, banning use of county property for lawful federal enforcement, and instructing county employees to withhold cooperation as a matter of policy, the council is no longer declining participation—it is obstructing execution of federal law.
That is precisely what the Supremacy Clause forbids.
Federal Statutes the County Can’t Wish Away
Beyond the Constitution, federal law explicitly limits what local governments may do in this space.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373, states and localities may not prohibit or restrict communication with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s immigration status. While Montgomery County attempts to dance around the statute by framing its policy as “voluntary non-cooperation,” courts have repeatedly looked past word games to examine practical effect.
A policy designed to chill cooperation, restrict access, and frustrate enforcement invites judicial review—and likely invalidation.
Councilmember Will Jawando’s comment—“If we get sued, we get sued”—is revealing. The county is not confident in its legal footing. It is gambling taxpayer dollars on ideological defiance.
Local Control Ends Where Federal Authority Begins
Council members repeatedly framed ICE enforcement as “terrorizing” the community, invoking emotional imagery of parents being “kidnapped” on their way to school. That rhetoric may play well on social media, but it is not law.
Federal agents executing congressionally authorized enforcement actions are not vigilantes. They are officers of the United States government.
Local governments do not possess constitutional authority to:
- Dictate the operational requirements of federal agencies
- Impose warrant standards beyond federal law
- Regulate federal officers’ attire
- Deny access to public facilities based on political disagreement
Those powers do not belong to counties. They never have.
The Lawsuit Is Not Hypothetical
Montgomery County officials openly acknowledge they expect litigation. They are right.
Similar policies in other jurisdictions have triggered Department of Justice lawsuits, federal funding threats, and court injunctions. A second Trump administration—or any administration inclined to enforce immigration law—will almost certainly challenge Montgomery County’s actions.
And when that happens, the costs will not be borne by advocacy groups or councilmembers. They will fall on county taxpayers.
Governance by Symbol, Not Law
County Executive Marc Elrich’s expected signature will complete the transformation of Montgomery County immigration policy from quiet non-cooperation into open resistance.
This is governance by symbolism: legislation crafted to send a message, not to survive constitutional review.
Counties do not get to nullify federal law because they dislike it. That principle was settled long ago.
Montgomery County is not building “trust.” It is building a collision—one that courts, not councilmembers, are likely to resolve.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.