Maryland House passes HB 444, banning certain local agreements with federal immigration enforcement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After hours of floor debate, the House passed HB 444 (99–40), a bill prohibiting local agreements with federal immigration-enforcement programs often referred to as 287(g). Supporters said it protects communities and victims; opponents warned it would hinder county law enforcement and jail-based cooperation.
The Maryland House of Delegates passed House Bill 444 on third reader and final passage by a roll call of 99 in favor and 40 opposed, declaring the measure passed on Feb. 3, 2026. The bill would prohibit local memoranda or agreements that deputize state or local officers to carry out federal immigration-enforcement functions associated with 287(g)-style programs.
Supporters framed the vote as a public-safety and civil‑rights measure that restores trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. A member who spoke in favor said the bill “is about ensuring that law enforcement, state and local law enforcement do exactly what it is that Marylanders want law enforcement to do,” and urged colleagues to cast a green vote to protect communities and victims who may fear engaging with police.
Proponents repeatedly cited high-profile cases in floor debate as part of their rationale for passage. Delegates referenced victims including Kayla Hamilton and Rachel Warren when arguing that local cooperation with broad federal enforcement priorities had not protected communities.
Opponents said the measure will restrict tools sheriffs and jail officials use to identify and transfer people held for serious criminal offenses. A delegate opposing the bill said he would vote no because “I am not having the next Kayla Hamilton on my watch,” and listed local examples and a belief that the program assists in removing dangerous offenders.
Several delegates representing counties that use jail‑based 287(g) screening described how the program operates locally. The Cecil County delegate noted ICE provides a four‑week entry-level training for county personnel and that local programs, as described on the floor, are confined to jail screening rather than proactive street enforcement.
Floor debate also featured disputes over the program’s scope and data: proponents warned the expansion of federal priorities and aggressive enforcement has eroded community trust; opponents underscored that some counties use narrow, jail‑based 287(g) models and argued the change could result in dangerous individuals being returned to the streets.
The clerk announced the final roll call tally, and the chair declared HB 444 passed. The bill text or the clerk’s announcement did not specify an effective date on the floor; the transcript records the passage but does not include implementation timing or subsequent steps. Fiscal or implementation details were discussed anecdotally, with several delegates pointing to county-level experiences and a fiscal note mention of local jail programs.