Maryland Sheriffs Sue State Over New Immigration Enforcement Restrictions
Why It Matters
A majority of Maryland’s county sheriffs have taken the state to federal court over a new immigration law they say prevents them from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The lawsuit puts Maryland at the center of a growing national conflict over whether state governments can limit local law enforcement participation in federal immigration enforcement.
What Happened
Sheriffs from 17 of Maryland’s 24 counties filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, seeking to block the Community Trust Act from taking effect. The suit names the state of Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore, and Attorney General Anthony Brown as defendants.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based immigration restriction organization, filed the suit on behalf of the sheriffs. The counties represented include Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Washington, Wicomico, and nine others spanning the state’s rural and suburban regions.
Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler, the lead plaintiff, announced the action at a Wednesday morning news conference in Annapolis, describing the law as “an intentional state-mandated obstruction of public safety.” Gahler said the measure bars sheriffs from sharing information with federal agencies and prohibits them from honoring immigration detainers — orders that allow local jails to hold individuals beyond their scheduled release for federal pickup.
The Community Trust Act, Senate Bill 791, was sponsored by Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard) and passed on the final day of this year’s legislative session. Under the law, local law enforcement would only be required to honor judicially issued warrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, not the administrative warrants ICE has historically used to request detentions.
Gov. Moore declined to sign the bill but allowed it to become law without his signature. His office reiterated Wednesday that the state supports law enforcement cooperation but would not allow, in the governor’s words, “untrained, unqualified, and unaccountable ICE agents” to direct Maryland officers to perform immigration enforcement duties.
By the Numbers
- 17 of Maryland’s 24 county sheriffs joined the federal lawsuit
- 8 of 9 Maryland counties with formal ICE cooperation agreements dropped them after an earlier emergency bill was signed into law this session
- 1 remaining county said its ICE agreement would no longer be enforced
- The lawsuit was filed more than 30 days after the Community Trust Act cleared the legislature
- Maryland’s legislative session runs 90 days, during which the sheriffs could have offered formal testimony on the bill
Competing Arguments
The sheriffs’ complaint argues the law amounts to deliberate interference with federal enforcement authority, not a passive policy disagreement. House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R-Allegany), who appeared alongside the sheriffs Wednesday, said administrative warrants have long been an accepted legal mechanism for detaining individuals, and that judicial warrants can take significantly longer to obtain — potentially allowing individuals to be released before federal agents can act.
Sen. Lam, the bill’s sponsor, pushed back, saying the sheriffs had months to engage with the legislation through normal channels. “Instead, they held multiple press conferences to mislead the public,” Lam said, adding that he believes the law will withstand legal scrutiny.
Attorney General Brown’s office declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Zoom Out
Maryland’s situation reflects a pattern playing out in multiple states as the Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement. Democratic attorneys general have clashed with federal officials on several fronts this year, and legal disputes between state and federal authorities over immigration cooperation have escalated significantly since January 2025. The distinction between administrative and judicial warrants has become a central flashpoint, with sanctuary-leaning states arguing administrative warrants lack the constitutional weight to compel local compliance.
What’s Next
The case will proceed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. Both sides are expected to file early motions, and the sheriffs may seek a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the law while litigation continues. The Community Trust Act’s implementation timeline and any court-ordered pause will determine how quickly its provisions affect day-to-day law enforcement operations across the state.