Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Sensitive Locations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary Committee debates 'sensitive locations' immigration enforcement bill; vote deferred to next day
Summary
Committee reviewed Senate Bill 828, which would restrict federal immigration enforcement actions at designated public locations and direct the attorney general to issue guidance; members agreed to vote the following morning after reviewing amendments.
The House Judiciary Committee discussed Senate Bill 828 on April 2, a measure that would limit federal immigration enforcement at designated "sensitive locations" and require the Maryland attorney general to develop and publish related guidance for agencies and some nonpublic facilities.
Committee counsel described the bill as combining elements from the Senate and the House U-Visa bill, with the Senate's narrower focus on public facilities (schools, libraries, state-operated health facilities and similar places) and a provision that federal immigration enforcement seeking access to nonpublic portions of those locations must present a federal court warrant. Counsel said the bill as amended strikes a courthouse from the sensitive-location definition and preserves a timeline that would require public agencies operating sensitive locations to adopt the attorney general's policies by Oct. 1, 2025.
Members debated whether the bill should require protections for private locations such as churches. Delegate Phillips asked why identified private facilities were removed; the chair and counsel said the change followed the Senate version and that the attorney general could still publish voluntary guidance for nonpublic places but the mandatory policy requirement would apply only to public facilities. The chair said the committee could revisit private facilities later if needed.
Several delegates asked whether the sponsors of the original private-facilities language had been consulted; the chair said affected delegates were present but the committee should discuss the draft before sending it back to the Senate. The committee did not vote on Senate Bill 828 during the session; the chair announced the committee will take up the bill in a voting session the following morning at 9:00 a.m., and encouraged members to submit proposed amendments beforehand.
The committee also discussed a narrow technical choice in the warrant language: the bill requires a warrant issued by a federal court rather than a state court. Counsel explained that change and noted the bill retains language clarifying that a federal immigration enforcement action qualifies as an "enforcement action" for criminal-procedure purposes.
The discussion left several open questions for members to resolve before the planned vote, including whether to restore any mandatory elements related to private facilities and how detailed the attorney general's guidance should be for nonpublic sites.
The committee adjourned for the day after several additional bills were considered; the chair reminded members to submit amendments for SB 828 before the morning voting session.
