Sheriff Chuck Jenkins has been facilitating the deportation of undocumented immigrants from his jurisdiction, Frederick County, Maryland, for the past 18 years. Thanks to an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under Section 287(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, undocumented immigrants held in his jails were transferred to the immigration agency after serving their sentences.

However, this arrangement no longer applies. A state law, passed in February of this year, prohibited the practice. The legislation made it illegal for local police departments and sheriff’s offices to hand over detainees to immigration authorities. This prompted counties that still had these agreements in place to terminate them immediately. And, last month, the Democratic-led state increased protections for migrants by passing the Community Trust Act, which prohibits local officials from asking people about their immigration status, informing immigration authorities about individuals detained in local jails, or holding them after they’ve served their sentences in order to hand them over to federal agents without a warrant.

Jenkins believes that the new legislation will make it harder for him to maintain order in his county. That’s why he has joined 16 other sheriffs across Maryland in taking the Community Trust Act to court. “[The original legislation] in itself was bad enough; [it] did a lot of damage to law enforcement and public safety. But then, to [follow up] with this Community Trust Act, what that did was basically take away every other means that we had available to us to cooperate and work with ICE, so we felt it was a step too far. We felt that sheriffs were placed in a position where we either had to obey federal law, or obey state law. We felt it was an untenable position,” he explains.

Sheriffs from 17 of Maryland’s 24 counties filed a lawsuit against Democratic Governor Wes Moore and Attorney General Anthony Brown in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland. They argue that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and places their officers in a difficult legal position, due to the conflict between state and federal law. The plaintiffs are Republicans, a minority in a state with a Democratic majority.

Sarah Staudt is the Policy and Advocacy director at the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit organization that supports the legislation. According to her, before February, there were only eight formal 287(g) agreements in the state: migrant detentions were based on informal collaborations, which are prohibited under the new law.

“Most ICE arrests in jails and other lock-ups occurring in Maryland are occurring not through formal 287(g) agreements, but through informal collaboration by local and state law enforcement with ICE. These collaborations are not targeting ‘dangerous criminals,’ but everyday Maryland residents,” Staudt told Congress this past February.

According to data from the Prison Policy Initiative, approximately one in three ICE arrests (29%) that have taken place in Maryland during the second Trump administration have occurred in jails or other detention facilities. Of these arrests, 81% have been carried out through informal collaboration with ICE, with only 19% occurring through formal 287(g) agreements. “Legislation that only addressed 287(g) agreements, therefore, would not address the bulk of the problem,” Staudt noted.

When Trump returned to the White House with the promise of a historic deportation effort, the focus of migrant detentions shifted. While the previous administration concentrated on carrying out deportations at the border, the Trump administration deployed thousands of ICE agents to inland cities. To facilitate these arrests, 287(g) agreements with immigration authorities were signed.

The ICE website has a section promoting these agreements: “How can I convince my chief or sheriff to participate in 287(g)?” one section asks. At the end of Joe Biden’s presidency, there were 139 such agreements nationwide. Today, there are 1,986 agreements in effect, spread across 39 states.

Trump’s anti-immigration agenda has prompted states to push for legislation concerning ICE. There are three main approaches. Some Republican-led states, like Florida, encourage cooperation; their ICE arrest rates are very high. Democratic-led states like New Jersey have taken a first step toward limiting cooperation with the agency by prohibiting these types of agreements. However, some Democratic-led states have allowed informal collaboration to continue, while some local sheriffs grant ICE access to their detention centers.

The Democratic-led state of Illinois has adopted the most stringent stance against arrests. According to a 2025 directive, local law enforcement agencies cannot transfer individuals to immigration custody; they cannot allow ICE agents access to any person in custody; they cannot authorize immigration agencies to use facilities or equipment, including electronic databases, nor can they provide any additional assistance to federal agents. Illinois is considered a “sanctuary” state, a term used for states that refuse to participate in immigration operations.

Divided opinions

The debate around public safety continues to divide public opinion. Immigrant advocates celebrate Maryland’s new law, arguing that it makes it easier for people to report crimes without fear of arrest. “When community members can interact with local police without fear of being turned over to federal immigration authorities, they are more likely to report crimes, cooperate with investigations and engage with public officials. That makes all our communities safer,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, in a statement released following the law’s publication.

Jeff Gahler, the sheriff for Harford County and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state of Maryland, views public safety from a different perspective. “Nearly 25 years ago, our nation saw the devastating results when the 9/11 attacks came to our country. It was very clear that when federal, state and local law enforcement agencies operate in silos, void of communication and partnership, the impact is deadly. It is unconscionable that we not only repeat these mistakes, but [also] that there are Maryland legislators and a governor who [have] created such a public safety divide.” he wrote, in an email response to EL PAÍS.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, neither signed nor vetoed the Community Trust Act, which went into effect this past May. Moore stated that he agrees with the bill’s objective of keeping local police focused on local crimes and that the state should not “let untrained, unqualified and unaccountable ICE agents deputize our law enforcement officers to do immigration work.” However, he noted that the bill “presents real implementation challenges.”

“Protecting our communities,” he continued, “requires seamless coordination among federal, state and local partners… and the bill creates ambiguities around joint investigations that we are working with the attorney general’s office to clarify.”

The law includes exceptions. For instance, local law enforcement agencies can alert immigration authorities about a person in custody if that person has been convicted of a felony, has been required to register as a sex offender, or has served at least five years in prison in another state.

Gahler and Jenkins argue that the issue has been politicized because criticism of cooperation with ICE has surged following Trump’s return to power. The 287(g) agreements were created in 1996, during the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, and have been in effect under both Democratic and Republican administrations. However, they never received the momentum that Trump has given them.

Both sheriffs are Republicans, as are the other signatories of the lawsuit against the Community Trust Act. But their counties had contrasting results in the 2024 presidential election: Harford County voted overwhelmingly for Trump, while Frederick County which is part of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, voted for the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.

Jenkins believes that, in addition to releasing criminals onto the streets, the new legislation will encourage more ICE raids. “[Right] now, ICE agents are in Frederick… and they’re apprehending people on the street that we would have turned over to them in jail. So, we’re seeing the presence of more ICE officers,” he says.

According to data from the Prison Policy Initiative, only 36% of people arrested by ICE in Maryland — broken down into 44% arrested through informal collaboration with law enforcement and 51% through the 287(g) agreements — had prior criminal convictions, including immigration and traffic violations.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition