Maryland committee hears push to end 287(g) jail agreements, advocates say program harms public safety and trust

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 27 heard extensive testimony on House Bill 1222, sponsored by Delegate Nicole Williams, which would prohibit state and local governments from entering into or continuing certain voluntary immigration‑enforcement agreements with federal authorities under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Supporters told the committee that the jail‑based 287(g) model erodes trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, discourages crime reporting and cooperation with police, and funnels people with little or no criminal history into deportation proceedings. Opponents, including some sheriffs and corrections officials, said the program helps identify people who pose public‑safety risks and that local agencies use it to arrest people already encountered in jails.

"This bill would prohibit any agent of the state or unit of local government from entering into certain voluntary immigration enforcement agreements with the Federal Government," Delegate Nicole Williams told the committee. She said the measure would not prevent local authorities from complying with valid judicial warrants for people convicted of violent crimes.

Why it matters: Testimony showed a split between advocates who said 287(g) undermines public safety by creating fear in immigrant communities and law‑enforcement officials who said the agreements provide a useful tool to identify suspects who would otherwise remain unknown to federal authorities.

What proponents said

Grama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, told the panel that 287(g) agreements "do not enhance public safety. They actively undermine it," arguing that deputizing local personnel for immigration tasks damages police–community relations and leads to fewer crime reports.

Yanneth Emmanuel of the ACLU of Maryland cited studies of Frederick County after it adopted 287(g) and recounted the February 2018 traffic‑stop case of Sarah Medrano, in which local deputies were found to have stopped her pretextually; Frederick County later settled litigation tied to that set of practices. She also told the committee that a recent review showed only about 17% of people subject to ICE detainers over a 12‑year period ending in 2020 were charged with felonies, and that many detainers were for minor traffic violations.

Stephanie Wolf of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender said 287(g) agreements often target people who are being released from local jails — people who may be innocent, have had charges dismissed, or be awaiting trial — and therefore do not necessarily capture individuals with serious criminal histories.

Delegate Williams and witnesses cited numbers and local examples: they said ICE reported 153 such agreements nationwide as of late February; that Maryland currently had 3 jurisdictions with agreements (Frederick, Harford and Cecil counties) and at least 1 pending county (Carroll); and that local reviews showed hundreds of people encountered through 287(g) programs over a multi‑year period, many without convictions. CASA witnesses described a statewide hotline fielding calls from fearful community members since January.

What opponents said

Representatives of some sheriff's offices and corrections officials urged the committee to oppose the measure. Eric Roby of the Harford County Sheriff's Office said Harford's program is a corrections‑only model used to identify people who are in custody and that it has been a useful public‑safety tool in that county. Harford County Lieutenant Yvonne Chester, who serves as a designated immigration officer at the county jail, described the jail screening process: incoming arrestees are screened and fingerprinted and ICE is notified if fingerprints indicate prior immigration encounters.

Roby and Chester said many people identified through jail‑based 287(g) programs have serious criminal histories, and they cited cases in which violent offenders were located after being booked in correctional facilities elsewhere.

Legal and fiscal questions

Multiple witnesses, including representatives of nonprofit legal groups, asked the committee to amend the bill to remove or narrow any language that would create mandatory detention or transfer requirements that state or the Maryland Attorney General had warned could raise constitutional problems. CASA and the ACLU urged removing provisions that they said could be struck down in court and instead called for a statute that directs policy while preserving constitutional limits.

Local elected officials said the agreements impose costs on counties — overtime, detention costs and potential legal liability for civil‑rights litigation over wrongful detentions — and urged that such fiscal impacts be considered. Several municipal officials described the program as diverting scarce local funds to federal enforcement work.

Questions and next steps

Committee members pressed witnesses on evidentiary claims: several committee members asked for data substantiating claims of a surge in arrests or the scope of community fear. Advocates said they were collecting hotline and case data to document recent changes in enforcement practice and urged prompt legislative action. Delegate Williams said she is working with the state Attorney General's office and stakeholders on amendments to address constitutional and implementation questions.

The committee did not vote on the bill during the Feb. 27 hearing. Supporters and opponents agreed on the same central tension: balancing local public‑safety objectives against trust and civil‑liberties impacts on immigrant communities. The sponsor said she would continue negotiating revisions before a future committee vote.

Ending note

The panel's exchange highlighted the policy trade‑offs lawmakers face on whether to prevent local agencies from entering voluntary immigration agreements or to leave decisions to local control, and the hearing made clear the issue will remain a focal point as the committee and the full legislature consider draft amendments.