The U.S. Department of Justice sued Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown… the second federal lawsuit against the law in six weeks.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown on July 9, seeking to block enforcement of the state’s Community Trust Act — the second federal lawsuit against the law in six weeks, and the clearest sign yet that Maryland’s sanctuary-style immigration policies are headed for a sustained fight in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The clearest sign yet that Maryland’s sanctuary-style immigration policies are headed for a sustained fight in federal court.
What DOJ Filed
The 33-page complaint, filed in the Northern Division in Baltimore, argues Senate Bill 791 violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by obstructing “the operation of federal immigration law” and impeding the consultation between federal, state and local officials that the government says immigration enforcement requires. DOJ is asking a judge to bar the state from enforcing the law and asserts President Trump has “authority to arrest, detain, and remove aliens unlawfully in the U.S.”
“When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced.” — Stanley Woodward
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, head of DOJ’s Civil Division, both issued statements framing the law as an affront to federal authority. Woodward’s statement, posted by the department July 9: “Federal immigration officers merely enforce the laws that our Nation’s elected representatives in Congress passed, reflecting the will of We the People. When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced. Today’s suit proves that this Department will never stand for such lawless action from blue state leaders.” Shumate added: “The American people are ultimately the ones who suffer when states pass these irresponsible sanctuary policies.”
“The American people are ultimately the ones who suffer when states pass these irresponsible sanctuary policies.” — Brett Shumate
Maryland is not an outlier target — DOJ has filed similar suits against roughly 20 other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois and New York, under a directive from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche instructing the Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies and practices that facilitate violations of federal law or impede federal immigration operations.
Brown’s office declined to comment on the suit — the same response it gave when 17 Maryland sheriffs sued over the same law in May.
Not the First Challenge
DOJ’s suit runs on a nearly identical legal theory to one already pending: Gahler v. Moore, filed May 26 in the court’s Southern Division (Greenbelt) by 17 of Maryland’s 24 sheriffs, backed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. That case — Civil Action No. 8:26-cv-02057, assigned to Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher — names Gov. Wes Moore, Brown, and the state as defendants and argues the Community Trust Act violates the Supremacy Clause four separate ways: by forcing sheriffs into conduct federal law criminalizes as harboring, by standing as an obstacle to federal immigration law, by express preemption under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and by violating intergovernmental immunity.
DOJ argues the Community Trust Act violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by obstructing the operation of federal immigration law.
The overlap in language between the two complaints is striking. The sheriffs’ suit calls the law’s passage “deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans” and “not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention.” DOJ’s complaint, filed six weeks later, uses nearly identical phrasing: “deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety for all Americans,” also “not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention.” Whether that reflects independent legal drafting converging on the same language or direct borrowing is worth asking DOJ and FAIR directly.
‘Deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans’ appears in both lawsuits.
As of this writing, no hearing has been publicly scheduled in Gahler, and the Community Trust Act remains in full effect statewide.
An Escalation With a Longer Paper Trail
Thursday’s suit is not the administration’s first move against Maryland specifically. It follows an April 2025 executive order directing DOJ to identify jurisdictions that obstruct federal immigration enforcement, and an August 2025 round of demand letters then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide, warning that officials who carry out sanctuary policies could face individual criminal liability. Baltimore County appeared on DOJ’s list of such jurisdictions at that time — more than half a year before the Community Trust Act itself passed. It is not yet clear what, if anything, Baltimore County did in response to that letter.
DOJ’s complaint also makes a specific factual allegation beyond the constitutional theory: that Maryland’s “refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities” has already caused “negative operational consequences,” alleging facilities have refused to transfer individuals to federal custody “even when presented with a routine detainer.” That claim is untested — it has not been adjudicated by any court, and no specific facility or county has been named publicly in reporting on the complaint so far.
What the Law Actually Does
The Community Trust Act, sponsored by Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard) and passed as emergency legislation on the final day of this year’s General Assembly session, took effect in May. Moore allowed it to become law without his signature, citing “real implementation challenges,” but has said the state will not let “untrained, unqualified, and unaccountable ICE agents deputize our law enforcement officers to do immigration work.”
The law bars local correctional facilities and law enforcement from detaining someone for ICE, or notifying ICE of a release date, without a judicial warrant — administrative ICE warrants no longer qualify. There are exceptions for felony convictions and sex-offense registrants. It followed an earlier bill banning formal 287(g) cooperation agreements between local agencies and ICE.
Contrary to how the law is sometimes characterized in the current political fight, it is not a blanket non-cooperation policy.
Contrary to how the law is sometimes characterized in the current political fight, it is not a blanket non-cooperation policy. AG guidance issued after passage requires state correctional facilities to notify ICE 48 hours before releasing someone subject to a detainer accompanied by a Form I-205 warrant of removal — meaning cooperation is mandatory once a qualifying federal warrant is actually in hand.
Cooperation is mandatory once a qualifying federal warrant is actually in hand.
County Laws Are Also Exposed
DOJ’s and the sheriffs’ shared legal theory — Supremacy Clause preemption — would not stop at the state line if a court accepts it. Montgomery County has gone further than the state law: its own Trust Act (Bill 35-25), signed in February, bars county employees from asking about immigration status and requires 48-hour notice to a person if an immigration agency requests information about them; the county also launched an ICE-activity reporting portal for residents on July 8, one day before DOJ’s suit. FAIR has separately criticized Montgomery’s sanctuary policy as more extreme than New York City’s or California’s, with no exceptions even for serious crimes.
A ruling against the state law on Supremacy Clause grounds would be difficult for county governments to distinguish from their own ordinances.
Several other Maryland jurisdictions maintain local policies limiting cooperation with ICE beyond what state law requires, though the specifics vary by county and have not been comprehensively reviewed for this piece. None have been named as defendants in either federal suit so far, but a ruling against the state law on Supremacy Clause grounds would be difficult for county governments to distinguish from their own ordinances.
What’s Unresolved
No case number or judge assignment for DOJ v. Maryland has yet appeared on public court trackers.
No hearing date has been reported in Gahler v. Moore since its May 26 filing.
Brown’s office has not offered a public legal defense of the law beyond declining comment.
Sen. Lam, the law’s sponsor, called the sheriffs’ suit “thinly veiled” and “poorly constructed” in May but has not yet commented publicly on the DOJ suit specifically.
House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R-Allegany) has argued the administrative-warrant process the law eliminated “has always been an acceptable method” and processes faster than judicial warrants — a practical, non-constitutional critique distinct from DOJ’s and the sheriffs’ legal theory.
Sources: This report draws on the U.S. Department of Justice’s July 9 complaint and public statements from Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate; the sheriffs’ complaint in Gahler v. Moore (Case No. 8:26-cv-02057-SAG, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland); Gov. Wes Moore’s office and spokesperson Rhyan Lake; Senate President Bill Ferguson’s public statement; and reporting from Reuters, The Baltimore Banner, CBS News Baltimore, WBFF Fox45 Baltimore, Fox 5 DC, Townhall, The Epoch Times, WCBM, Maryland Matters and News from the States. Additional detail on Montgomery County’s local ordinance comes from county government records and public FAIR advocacy materials. Direct quotations are taken from primary statements and court filings where available.
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.
