Maryland House Passes Community Trust Act After Hours of Amendments and Debate
Loading...
Summary
After hours of contentious floor debate and multiple failed amendments, the Maryland House passed Senate Bill 791, the Community Trust Act, which adjusts when local correctional facilities notify federal immigration authorities; the final roll call was 92-37.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 791, the Community Trust Act, on March 28 after a late-night floor session marked by repeated amendments and partisan exchanges over when local officials may notify or cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The bill, read on third reading as 'Senate bill 7 91, correctional services and public safety, immigration enforcement, prohibitions, community trust act,' drew sustained debate over whether local jurisdictions should be allowed to share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before conviction in serious criminal cases. The final roll call was 92 votes in favor and 37 opposed, after several targeted amendments — including proposals to carve out homicide and other violent offenses — failed on the House floor.
Supporters framed the measure as a way to balance public safety with due process and uniform state practice. 'This is not a sanctuary bill. It is actually quite the opposite. It is mandatory notification to ICE for every single person coming out of our state prisons who are there for a serious, serious crime,' Majorit y Leader (speaker 11) said on the floor, underscoring the majority's contention that the bill targets convicted violent offenders and seeks to codify notification procedures already common in practice.
Opponents warned the measure would erode due process and public-safety safeguards by allowing federal officials to remove people before cases are resolved or by chilling cooperation in multi-jurisdiction investigations. 'Due process is actually a thing. It is actually a constitutional promise to everyone on these soils,' the Del egate from Baltimore City (speaker 20) told colleagues, arguing that the bill’s earlier-form language risked treating arrested people as if already convicted.
Several floor amendments sought to narrow the bill's reach — including proposals to allow immediate notification for homicide, other crimes of violence, cases involving child victims, and incidents of human trafficking. Sponsors repeatedly invoked recent local cases as rationale for exceptions; opponents responded that judges and existing detention practices already address flight risk and public safety. The amendment to create a homicide exception was rejected 85–(not specified in the roll call excerpt as yes), and a string of similar amendments failed in subsequent roll calls.
Lawmakers also debated operational details. A technical amendment that removed the word 'written' from the bill’s notification requirement — allowing facilities to notify federal authorities by other timely means — was adopted on the floor to address practical concerns about notice methods and timing.
The House recorded multiple exchanges about how notification interacts with fingerprinting and federal databases. One delegate who offered a procedural clarification said, 'They are not deported without the charges being adjudicated and a sentence served,' explaining floor proponents’ view that notification does not automatically produce immediate deportation in many cases and that ICE typically detains individuals pending adjudication when appropriate.
Throughout the night, members pressed on institutional issues: whether the bill would hinder participation in federal task forces (sponsors said it would not), how judges should continue to exercise discretion over pretrial release and bail, and whether the legislation would invite federal retaliation or funding consequences. Minority members repeatedly proposed data reporting and a two-year review or sunset to allow the legislature to assess practical effects; that proposal failed.
After the final roll call the Speaker declared the measure passed. Members then made committee announcements and the majority leader moved that the House adjourn until Monday, April 13 at 10:00 a.m.
What happens next: The House declared the bill passed on third reading (92–37). Members on both sides of the aisle said the measure would now continue to its next procedural steps; some speakers predicted that its enactment could prompt further legal and executive-branch attention, including possible review or veto consideration at the executive level.
