Some Maryland Sheriffs and law makers are at odds at how to deal with immigration.
A group of 17 sheriffs are represented in a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Community Trust Act. That law, passed by the Maryland General Assembly, forbids local law enforcement agencies from acting at the behest of ICE.
The sheriffs claim the law intentionally obstructs law enforcement.
"I considered it an overstep of Governor Moore's authority. The key to successful law enforcement is communication between agencies," Dorchester County Sheriff James Phillips jr. said.
Phillips is one of the sheriffs represented in the suit, " [Moore is] trying to limit who we can talk to. He's telling us we can't assist them in any way, shape or form. And it causes us to violate the oath that we took in office. We took an oath in office to uphold the constitution."
The Community Trust Act became law in May. It prohibits law enforcement from communicating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their routine activities to detain someone on a civil immigration violation. The lawsuit came less than a week after the act went into effect.
"We believe that the supremacy clause of the United States government, that we can't create a law that hinders, or that impacts the federal law," Talbot county Sheriff Joe Gamble, also represented in the suit said.
The big idea the sheriffs cling to is "harboring".
"if we're not cooperating and we're not allowed to cooperate, can we be held liable under federal law? Can the detention center be held liable for harboring? They're harboring somebody the federal government wants and they're not cooperating with the federal government," Gamble said.
David Koelsch is a practitioner in residence at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, Chacon Center for Immigrant Justice. He said harboring applies more so to private citizens.
Before going to the Chacon Center Koelsch was an immigration judge for the U.S. Department of Justice and officer with the Department of Homeland Security.
"Harboring means that you're actually providing refuge and safety and shelter to somebody. It doesn't mean that you're not honoring a detainer… if they don't honor the detainer, it's not like they're going to hold the person any longer than they have to. They're going to let them out. So they're actually doing the opposite of harboring," Koelsch said.
Koelsch still doesn't completely disregard the sheriff's case.
"There is a federal law that basically says that state and local governments cannot bar their employees, which would include the police, from sending information regarding the immigration status of any person to ICE," for that reason, he said, the Community Trust Act attempts to thread the needle, "they try to prohibit state and local law enforcement from sharing information in routine contacts with people. So for example, if they pull somebody over, somebody who's speeding or something like that or does a wrong right on red or something, something not major, then they're not allowed."
Essentially keeping a traffic stop from escalating into a deportation.
The act is not a flat prohibition of sharing information with ICE.
"If there's a criminal investigation by ICE, such as a human trafficking investigation or drug trafficking, something like that, well then yeah, the state and local police work together with ICE on a lot of those investigations. So naturally the state and local law enforcement would share information with ICE on somebody. And then the second time is that they can also share information with ICE when the person's immigration status is directly connected to certain immigration protections," Koelsch said.
The major mechanism used by ICE to request custody of an individual are detainers.
"ICE would file a detainer with the jail and said, 'Hey, when you're done with him, this person, we would like to have him.'," Gamble said.
Under the Community Trust Act local law enforcement can no longer honor those detainers. The new law requires a warrant from a judge.
"The way Congress set up the law years ago was that an agent can sign a detainer. It doesn't go in front of a judge. So it's not like they're taking a shortcut," Gamble said.
However, it's also not law — it's regulation.
"That's just ICE saying, 'Oh, this is what we think,' but frankly, that's not good enough. If they really want somebody and they want somebody who has a major immigration violation or a serious criminal issue, then fine, but go through the proper steps and go to a judge and have the judge say, 'Okay, this meets our requirements. Go ahead and arrest this person.'," Koelsch said.
The sheriffs contend that they should be able to regularly communicate with ICE.
"We should not be in a position with picking and choosing which federal law enforcement partners we work with," Harford County Sheriff Jefferey Gahler said. Gahler is the lead plaintiff on the suit.
"We were looking for those people who pose a threat to public safety or national security. When we identified them through our 287G program, not everybody had a detainer filed on them, but those who ICE said, if you cut this person loose, they're going to re-offend, they're going to pose a threat. Why on earth would I want to open the door and let them back out? And that's the whole reason we signed up initially for the partnership that we enjoyed for eight years," Gahler said.
The "287(G)" that Gahler's referring to is a formal partnership between law enforcement and ICE. The Maryland General Assembly banned the program in February.
"What happened very quickly after that was signed into law by the governor was that a lot of these local law enforcement officials, particularly locally elected sheriffs, basically came out and said, 'well, you may have banned the formal agreement between us and ICE, but we're just gonna have these informal communications go on between us and ICE.'," State Senator Clarence Lam said. Lam sponsored the Community Trust Act, "So, the community trust act essentially closes any loopholes that might've previously existed that allowed local law enforcement to be able to communicate and collaborate directly with ICE."
He said the intention behind the law is for undocumented residents of Maryland to feel comfortable turning to the police.
"So, that they're not fearful of turning to them to report a crime with some lingering concerns that, 'ICE might come pick me up', you know or, 'knock on my door or arrest me,' 'I don't want to serve as a witness because ICE might find out. I am otherwise undocumented.'," Lam said.
The sheriffs claim the law is simply politically motivated. In fact, They say it'll make things harder for immigrants because ICE will have to go into the community to detain people.
"What's going to happen is they might have to go knock on a door or pull over a car. And [ICE] already told us if they're looking for a person and others are harboring them and they don't have legal status, everybody's going. Doesn't matter if they're two or 92. They told us that," Gamble said.
Lam said ICE is already doing that.
"It's an effort, really ask our local law-enforcement to focus on enforcing state and local law. That we have plenty of laws on the books that need enforcement on the state and local level and we believe that as a state if we're spending our tax dollars on enforcement Locally that they should really focus on enforcing state and local law," Lam said.
Phillips argues that it's part of local law enforcement, "If they're here illegally, it's a crime. Okay? Illegal is illegal."
Being in this country illegally is a civil violation, not a crime.
"Immigration law is a civil matter and we have a Department of Homeland Security that has more personnel, more money than ever before to do their jobs. They can do their jobs just fine these days. They don't need the sheriffs helping them out. If the sheriffs can focus on the crimes that are actually committed against the people who live in their jurisdictions, I think we'd all be a lot better off," Koelsch said.
For now the case is still in court and both sides are ready to appeal if they're not happy with the result.
"So if this is ruled unconstitutional or illegal then I think the state plan to appeal this and will appeal farther up and if that's the case if we may need to look at additional legislation going into the 2027 legislative session to figure out what other steps we can take to curtail these type of practices…I am confident that we will prevail in court though because we have seen this we've seen the type of cases. Rise through federal court, and they've been all found in favor of the fact that these laws are permissible," Lam said.
"We will meet with our attorneys and at every stage, we will decide how best to proceed. But ultimately, I think this could be a case that ends up in front of the United States Supreme Court," Gahler said.