By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

Governor Wes Moore has signed legislation prohibiting Maryland counties from entering into or continuing 287(g) agreements — the federal program that allows local law enforcement to be deputized to perform certain civil immigration enforcement functions.

Republicans immediately blasted the move as an override of local sheriffs and a blow to public safety coordination.

But the governor’s office insists critics are mischaracterizing what the law actually does.

So which is it?

What 287(g) Actually Allowed

The 287(g) program, authorized under federal law, allowed voluntary agreements between local jurisdictions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Participating officers could receive federal training and be deputized to identify and process certain non-citizens already in local custody.

Only a small number of Maryland counties participated. The agreements were voluntary and controlled at the local level.

With Moore’s signature, that option is now prohibited statewide.

What the Moore Administration Says the Law Does Not Do

In its official release, the governor’s office makes several specific claims:

• The law does not authorize the release of criminals.
• It does not prevent jurisdictions from honoring ICE detainers within constitutional limits.
• It does not block local notification to ICE about release dates.
• It does not prevent cooperation on criminal investigations or joint task forces unrelated to civil immigration enforcement.
• It does not eliminate federal immigration enforcement in Maryland.

In other words, the administration argues this is a narrow restriction on deputizing local officers for civil immigration enforcement — not a sanctuary policy and not a severing of all coordination.

On paper, that distinction matters.

So Is the Governor Lying?

Not exactly — but the answer depends on what you mean by “cooperation.”

The law does not stop ICE from operating in Maryland. It does not prohibit communication. It does not bar coordination on violent crime.

But it does eliminate formal structured agreements that provided:

• Federal training for local officers
• Clear operational frameworks
• Established communication channels
• Funding and administrative support tied to the agreements

That formal structure is what local sheriffs argue is being dismantled.

Ending 287(g) doesn’t eliminate federal enforcement — it changes the mechanism. Instead of deputized local officers operating within a formal framework, enforcement becomes more directly federal.

That may satisfy progressive policy goals.

But it also means less local control over how federal immigration enforcement intersects with county law enforcement.

The Local Control Question

Here is where the political fight sharpens.

For years, Democrats have championed local autonomy — particularly in policing and criminal justice reform. Yet this bill removes discretion from locally elected sheriffs who chose to participate in 287(g).

Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey called it a “one-size-fits-all mandate from Annapolis.” That critique is about governance, not just immigration.

The core issue is whether Annapolis should override county-level decisions on voluntary federal partnerships.

The governor’s office frames the move as protecting constitutional policing and community trust. Republican lawmakers frame it as eliminating tools that counties deemed useful.

Both arguments can coexist.

What Likely Changes in Practice

Here’s what is realistic:

• ICE will still operate in Maryland.
• Counties can still notify federal authorities about release dates.
• Violent offenders can still be transferred within constitutional bounds.
• But local officers will no longer act as federally deputized immigration agents.

The practical impact depends on how aggressively ICE operates independently — and how counties adapt without formal agreements.

If federal activity increases without structured coordination, critics may argue Moore weakened local oversight.

If crime trends remain unaffected, supporters will claim the fears were overstated.

The Political Reality

Immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues heading into 2026. Ending 287(g) allows Moore to align Maryland firmly with progressive states distancing themselves from federal civil immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans now have a clear campaign argument: that Moore centralized authority in Annapolis while claiming to defend public safety.

The truth is more technical than either side’s talking points.

The governor is not abolishing ICE cooperation.

But he is ending a voluntary federal partnership model that some local sheriffs believed worked.

Whether that decision improves trust in law enforcement or reduces structured coordination will ultimately be measured in outcomes — not press releases.

---

What the Law Actually Says

What the 287(g) Ban Does — And Does Not Do

To understand the impact of the new law, here’s what it formally changes:

What It Prohibits

• Maryland counties may no longer enter into or renew 287(g) agreements with ICE.
• Local law enforcement officers cannot be deputized to perform federal civil immigration enforcement functions.
• Existing structured partnerships under the federal 287(g) program must end.

What It Does NOT Prohibit

According to the governor’s office:

• It does not require the release of violent offenders.
• It does not prevent honoring ICE detainers within constitutional limits.
• It does not stop local agencies from notifying ICE of release dates.
• It does not prohibit cooperation on criminal investigations unrelated to civil immigration enforcement.
• It does not stop ICE from conducting enforcement operations in Maryland.

What That Means Practically

• ICE retains authority to operate independently.
• Local agencies lose formal deputization authority and associated federal training structures.
• Coordination becomes informal rather than structured under 287(g).

The debate now centers on whether removing formal agreements improves community trust — or simply replaces structured cooperation with more direct federal activity.

---

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.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip