Judge Calls Brown’s ICE Subpoena “Fatally Facially Defective” and Tosses His Lawsuit as Rutledge Hits Office’s Priorities

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

---

BALTIMORE — A federal judge has thrown out Attorney General Anthony Brown’s lawsuit demanding that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hand over records about its Baltimore holding rooms, finding that the state law Brown relied on does not let his office subpoena a federal agency. His Republican challenger, Jim Rutledge, says the loss shows an office more focused on fighting Washington than protecting Marylanders.

U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss in a memorandum opinion dated Thursday, Oct. 15, in State of Maryland v. Venturella. The state sued after the Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not comply with an administrative subpoena Brown’s office issued Jan. 30. Rubin wrote that the subpoena “is fatally facially defective and cannot be enforced by this court.”

Brown’s office, she wrote, “has no cognizable right to the information requested.”

What the judge found

The subpoena cited one provision of state law, State Government § 20-1044(b), which lets the attorney general compel records in certain civil rights investigations involving a “person.” Rubin concluded that “person” does not include federal government entities, and noted that courts do not presume the federal government is a “person” without clear language saying so. Brown’s office also cited a second provision, § 6-106.1(b)(1), in a letter that accompanied the subpoena. Rubin treated that provision as outside the subpoena’s stated basis.

With no authority to enforce the subpoena against a federal agency, she found the state could not allege an injury that would give it standing to sue. The dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and was without prejudice, which means the ruling does not itself bar a new action. She denied the state’s motion for summary judgment as moot.

The state also argued in its briefs that it was investigating private contractors that help run the holding rooms. Rubin wrote that this was “at odds with the posture and substance” of the complaint and the subpoena, which named DHS and ICE. The positions in the state’s briefing, she wrote, “may be ‘substantially valid,'” but are “procedurally incompetent” to establish jurisdiction. The phrase applied to that contractor argument, not to the whole suit.

ICE had rejected the subpoena on Feb. 25. According to the opinion, it called most of the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and duplicative of discovery in the separate class action, and raised possible Privacy Act issues for seven of them. Rubin did not decide whether those objections were justified. Her ruling turned on the state’s authority.

A Brown spokeswoman said the office is “reviewing the opinion.” The Banner identified her as Kelsey Hartman. A Homeland Security spokesperson told The Baltimore Sun the agency was pleased “this frivolous lawsuit” was dismissed.

Rutledge: “National activist”

Rutledge, a Harford County attorney with four decades of practice and former Bel Air town commissioner, issued a release Oct. 20 arguing the case was about headlines, not results. His case to voters is that the attorney general’s office should spend its lawyers’ time on crime, consumer fraud, and the Chesapeake Bay.

“Marylanders don’t need an Attorney General who acts like a national activist,” Rutledge said in the release.

He is not alone in questioning the pace of Brown’s suits. Maryland Matters reported in November 2025 that the office had filed or joined 43 lawsuits and about 70 legal briefs against the Trump administration in under ten months. Fox 45 Baltimore later counted more than 100 actions in 14 months. By Oct. 13, Maryland Matters reported that Maryland had been leading or signing on to more than 150 lawsuits, court briefs and advisory letters with other states since Trump’s second term began. That total mixes three kinds of filings, not 150 separate lawsuits. Delegate Lauren Arikan has called the effort “an election year stunt.” Brown has answered that Marylanders’ constitutional rights are “non-negotiable.”

Rutledge told Maryland Matters earlier this month that the attorney general “shouldn’t sue the federal government just because of a policy disagreement.” He has the endorsement of the Maryland State Fraternal Order of Police.

What the ruling did not decide

The decision was about the state’s legal authority, not about conditions inside the hold rooms. A separate class action remains before the same judge, who earlier ordered ICE to end overcrowding there. In late September, Rubin found the rooms were still overcrowded and that ICE had violated her earlier order, calling the agency’s conduct a “spectacular failure,” The Daily Record reported. DHS says the Baltimore office is a processing facility, not a detention facility, and calls claims of overcrowding false. Brown has described his investigation as a civil rights inquiry that ICE refused to cooperate with.

• The ruling rests on state statutory authority, not on the facts of the hold rooms.
• The class action over conditions continues.
• Brown’s office has said only that it is reviewing the opinion.

What to Watch

• Whether Brown’s office appeals or refiles.
• Further orders in the class action.
• Early voting runs Oct. 22 through Oct. 29, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Election Day is Nov. 3.

---

Sources: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Memorandum Opinion, State of Maryland v. Venturella et al., No. 1:26-cv-01024-JRR, Oct. 15, 2026. Ian Round, “MD AG loses suit that argued ICE ‘stonewalled’ subpoena,” The Daily Record, Oct. 16, 2026. Daniel Zawodny, “Federal judge rejects AG Brown’s bid for Baltimore ICE facility records,” The Baltimore Banner, Oct. 16, 2026. “Judge dismisses Maryland lawsuit over Baltimore ICE facility,” The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 2026. Maryland Office of the Attorney General, release announcing the lawsuit. William J. Ford, “Rutledge faces steep climb to unseat Brown in low-key attorney general’s race,” Maryland Matters, Oct. 13, 2026. “Brown compiles ‘voluminous’ record of legal challenges to Trump administration policies,” Maryland Matters, Nov. 7, 2025. “Critics call it political theatre,” Fox 45 Baltimore, March 11, 2026. Rutledge for Attorney General release, Oct. 20, 2026, which is campaign material and was supplied to MDBayNews. MDBayNews did not contact the Rutledge campaign or the Office of the Attorney General for this report.

---

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