Cumberland County commissioners held a workshop to review requests from residents and advocacy groups to end or limit the county’s practice of holding immigration detainees for federal authorities at the Cumberland County Jail.

The meeting assembled legal and operational perspectives: Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce said state statute and jail standards require county jails to accept federal arrestees and that he will “not violate those” laws; District Attorney Jacqueline Sartoris warned that immigration enforcement has reduced victims’ willingness to cooperate with prosecutions; and outside advocates urged the county to cancel or amend its intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service so the jail would no longer function as a de facto ICE holding site.

The discussion matters because it touches on public-safety operations, obligations under Maine law and Department of Corrections standards, detainee access to counsel, and community trust. Commissioners heard sworn statements from county officials, legal analysis from an outside attorney, and testimony from several immigrant-rights and school-community speakers who described fear and disruption tied to immigration enforcement.

Sheriff Kevin Joyce, identified himself as the county jail’s custodian, told commissioners the county has held federal arrestees for decades and cited Title 30-A provisions and state correctional standards in explaining his position. “I took an oath to protect Cumberland County. I took an oath to uphold all state and federal laws,” Joyce said, adding that jail staff are not trained as immigration investigators and that his office provides medical screening, legal access and other services used for all inmates.

District Attorney Jacqueline Sartoris said her office is seeing victims decline to cooperate because of fear of deportation. “When I have victims who are not willing to work with law enforcement because they fear deportation, that means that someone who’s committed a crime is really unlikely to face the kind of prosecution that they should face,” Sartoris said. She told commissioners that assaults on trust and victims’ participation have increased in recent weeks and described concerns about U Visa applicants being targeted.

An attorney representing No Ice for Maine, Shelby Layton, reviewed state statutes and Department of Corrections standards and concluded those sources do not unambiguously require the county to detain immigration detainees. Layton argued that 30-A M.R.S. §1554 applies to federal prisoners who are “prisoners” under the statute’s definition — typically persons sentenced for crime — and therefore “on its face” does not plainly mandate holding ICE civil detainees. Layton urged action despite legal uncertainties, saying, “The rule of law is important. But sometimes there’s questions about what the law means and we have to stand up what’s right and put for what’s right.”

Community speakers described individual cases and broader community impacts. Crystal Kron, who identified herself as founder of Pacenda Maine, said the scale of federal resources for immigration enforcement has grown and that local jails are part of a national detention network. Kron told the board that ICE’s budget has expanded dramatically and urged the county to “take ourselves off the map.” Mariela Hakomei, a social worker at Deering High School, testified that students and families are missing school and living with trauma because of fear of immigration enforcement.

A letter from the Maine Department of Corrections was entered into the record and read aloud. The letter said municipal and county jails must be available for detention of persons arrested by state or “any other law enforcement officer” and cited operational standards that “under no circumstance may a jail refuse to admit an individual arrested by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement and transported to the jail, except as expressly provided” for narrow health exceptions. The letter also noted typical county practice of holding individuals for up to 72 hours to accommodate initial appearances.

County staff and the sheriff clarified operational details for commissioners: the jail maintains a federal-capacity male pod of 84 beds and a female pod of about 40; an ICE representative works roughly 20 business hours a week at the facility; the jail’s current population was stated at about 425 inmates; and the county reported roughly 10 budgeted, unfilled correctional officer positions and many additional unbudgeted staffing vacancies. The sheriff said average stays for detainees are roughly 19 days, and that the facility provides attorney access on a weekly basis from legal clinics and immigrant-legal-service programs.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote. They directed staff and counsel to pursue additional legal review and scheduled a forthcoming executive session to consult with the county attorney and (if feasible) an immigration-law expert. The board’s chair said commissioners intend to place “an action motion” on the next regular meeting agenda for further direction.

Commissioners and presenters repeatedly raised transparency and data questions. Commissioners asked the sheriff’s office for regular, dated reports showing detainee counts, the detainees’ places of arrest or origin when available, and whether detainees were Maine residents. Presenters and some commissioners said current reporting lacked consistent dates and sometimes listed location as “unknown,” complicating efforts to analyze whether the jail is being used primarily for local arrests or to house transfers from other states.

No binding change was made at the workshop. Commissioners said they would pursue legal analysis of the county’s intergovernmental agreement, the contract’s termination and partial-termination language, and any federal rules that might affect the county’s ability to amend or end a portion of the contract that lists ICE-related housing. Members indicated they may consider contract amendments addressing transparency and limits on which federal detainees the county will accept, but emphasized any formal change would follow legal review.

Next steps announced at the close of the session included scheduling an executive session with the county attorney to review contractual obligations and potential liabilities, seeking outside immigration-law counsel if necessary, and adding an action item to the subsequent regular meeting agenda so the full board can consider a formal direction or vote.