Maryland lawmakers fast-tracked emergency bills on Thursday to curb cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and push back against a planned detention expansion in Washington County.
The Democratic-led General Assembly moved to prohibit local law enforcement from entering 287(g) agreements with federal authorities and to restrict when state and local correctional staff can transfer people to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Those steps came after the Department of Homeland Security expanded detention capacity and completed a $102.4 million purchase of a Williamsport property that ICE plans to convert into a 1,500-bed facility.
Federal officials defended enforcement operations this week as Maryland’s legislative efforts intensified. “ICE officers and special agents are trained in the Immigration and Nationality Act, so anyone that is here legally or lawfully or a U.S. citizen should not be concerned about being deported or detained,” Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said on February 10, 2026, during House Committee on Homeland Security oversight testimony.
An ICE official spokesperson addressed concerns about the planned Washington County site on February 10, 2026. “These will not be warehouses — they will be very well-structured detention facilities meeting our regular detention standards. Every day, DHS is conducting law enforcement activities across the country to keep Americans safe. It should not come as news that ICE will be making arrests in states across the U.S. and is actively working to expand detention space.”
Lawmakers framed the bills as a direct response to federal actions and a flashpoint over a single project: the Williamsport plan at 16220 Wright Road. DHS finalized the purchase on January 22, 2026.
The package also reflects a broader clash between Maryland’s legislature and the Trump administration’s second-term immigration agenda, with state leaders seeking to limit how state and local agencies intersect with immigration detention and federal enforcement.
One measure, SB 245 / HB 444, targets 287(g) agreements, which allow local agencies to perform certain federal immigration enforcement tasks. The Maryland House and Senate have passed “emergency legislation” to prohibit local law enforcement from entering into those contracts.
Nine Maryland counties currently participate in 287(g) agreements, including Frederick, Harford, and Wicomico. The ban would remove a pathway for sheriffs’ offices and other local agencies to formalize immigration enforcement work inside local systems.
In practical terms, residents who interact with county police or sheriffs’ deputies would face fewer situations in which local officers conduct immigration enforcement tasks under federal authority. The measure does not block federal agents from operating under federal authority in Maryland.
A second bill, SB 791, is titled the Community Trust Act. It prohibits state and local correctional staff from inquiring about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status and forbids transfers to ICE without a judicial warrant.
The judicial warrant requirement matters because it conditions transfers on a court-issued document, rather than a request that originates from immigration authorities. SB 791, as described by lawmakers advancing it, aims to constrain how local custody transitions into federal immigration detention.
The bills focus on state and local actors, including correctional staff and law enforcement, rather than federal agencies. ICE agents can still make arrests in Maryland, and DHS can still pursue detention capacity under federal authority, even as the state attempts to narrow cooperation channels.
A separate federal proposal also emerged as Maryland lawmakers pressed their case. Rep. April McClain Delaney introduced the Keep ICE Out of Washington County, Maryland Act on February 10, 2026.
That measure seeks to block the use of congressionally appropriated funds for the Williamsport facility and allows local residents to challenge the project in court. The bill’s design, as described in the proposal, ties the detention project to funding restrictions and litigation pathways rather than state-level enforcement limits.
At the center of the dispute sits the Williamsport site that DHS purchased for $102.4 million. The property is a warehouse at 16220 Wright Road, Williamsport, and ICE plans to convert it into a 1,500-bed detention center.
Supporters of the legislative push treat the facility’s size and location as a practical problem, arguing it could reshape the regional detention footprint and increase transfers into western Maryland. They have also pointed to transportation burdens and questions about access to counsel and family if detainees are held far from their support networks.
The Williamsport plan also carries steps that remain outside the legislature’s control, including permits, contracts, and operational timelines. The prospect of court challenges has also hovered over the project as state and federal actions collide.
In Washington, federal officials have tried to distinguish between immigration enforcement and other parts of the immigration system that many residents deal with more often. ICE handles enforcement and detention, while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicates benefits.
USCIS Director Joseph Edlow addressed funding and continuity concerns on February 10, 2026, telling lawmakers that USCIS remains “funded primarily by the fees people pay.” Edlow emphasized that immigration operations would continue despite potential budget standoffs or state-level restrictions.
That distinction matters for Maryland residents because the state measures focus on local cooperation with enforcement and detention, not on benefits processing. People applying for immigration benefits interact with USCIS, not ICE, even as federal enforcement actions can affect families and communities.
Lawmakers have also linked their push to public-safety arguments that go beyond the Williamsport project. They cited the recent fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, by federal agents in Minneapolis as a primary reason to “disentangle” local police from federal immigration work.
Supporters have presented the bills as an attempt to keep local policing focused on local priorities, while reducing the chance that routine contact with local agencies leads to immigration consequences. They have also argued that separating local law enforcement from immigration enforcement can increase cooperation with police.
Advocates, as described in the debate around the bills, argued the measures will reduce “fear-based” avoidance of local police. That, they say, could encourage residents to report crimes without fear of deportation, even as federal enforcement remains active.
Opponents have argued the measures strip law enforcement of a tool they use to identify people they view as threats while those individuals are already in custody. Several Republican sheriffs criticized the 287(g) ban as weakening cooperation with federal authorities.
Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins argued that ending the partnerships will “erode crime-fighting efforts” and remove a key tool for identifying violent offenders in custody. Supporters of the bills have countered that the measures clarify roles and reduce the degree to which local agencies become part of the federal enforcement pipeline.
The emergency status of the bills gives the standoff urgency that standard legislation would not. By labeling these bills as “emergency legislation,” they take effect the moment Governor Wes Moore signs them, bypassing the typical October 1 start date for new laws.
That timing can change how quickly agencies must adjust policies, training, and day-to-day practices. It also raises the stakes for local governments that rely on existing agreements and for communities watching whether the state’s limits translate into immediate operational changes.
Even with faster implementation, the practical balance remains contested. Maryland can restrict how its own agencies cooperate, but it cannot stop federal authorities from conducting enforcement operations under federal law.
The frictions show up most sharply in detention planning. If the state curtails local cooperation, federal agencies can still pursue capacity, but they may need to adjust how they transport and house detainees and how they coordinate with local facilities.
The proposed Williamsport conversion has become the symbol of that collision. In the debate around the bills, opponents have emphasized the federal government’s authority to detain, while supporters have stressed the state’s authority over local operations, zoning, and public safety.
For detainees and families, the operational outcomes can shape where people are held and how quickly they can reach attorneys and relatives. If the 287(g) ban is signed, approximately 1,500 potential beds in the new Williamsport facility could be legally challenged, potentially forcing ICE to transport detainees to out-of-state facilities, further away from legal counsel and family.
Federal officials have kept their messaging focused on standards and routine enforcement. “These will not be warehouses — they will be very well-structured detention facilities meeting our regular detention standards,” the ICE official spokesperson said, as DHS pressed ahead with detention space expansion.
Readers looking for primary documents can find the bill text and official statements through government and congressional sources cited by lawmakers and agencies. Maryland’s legislature provides bill materials for HB 444 – Public Safety – Immigration Enforcement Agreements.
USCIS posts agency statements and updates at its Official Press Releases page. DHS and ICE publish detention and local-operations statements through Official Statements and Local Operations.
McClain Delaney’s office has also circulated material on the federal proposal through a Press Release on Washington County Legislation (Feb 10, 2026), as the fight over immigration detention and cooperation in Maryland increasingly centers on what happens next in Williamsport.
