The Maryland Values Act Just Passed the General Assembly:  Here’s What That Means

Since the inception of Section 287(g), ICE has signed 444 Memorandums of Agreement for 287(g) programs spanning 38 states. There are three models according to ICE, from the broadest scope to the most limited scope: Task Force Model (TFM), Jail Enforcement Model (JEM), and the Warrant Service Officer Model (WSO).

The TFM grants local officers most of the powers of ICE agents, such as asking citizenship status questions during arrest for potential transfer to ICE custody. There are currently agreements with 141 law enforcement agencies in 16 states.

Meanwhile, the JEM allows local officers to conduct immigration enforcement solely within the jail, investigate immigration history, issue detainers and warrants, and transfer individuals to ICE. There are currently agreements with 60 law enforcement agencies in 16 states.

Lastly, the WSO allows local officers to perform federal immigration agents’ functions within jail facilities under ICE warrants for the transfer of immigrants in jail to long-term ICE custody. In contrast to JEMs, ICE does not allow for interrogation regarding citizenship in WSO agreements. There are currently agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies in 11 states.

Unfortunately, many of these models have historically targeted individuals with little or no criminal history, bringing them under criticism for their enforcement practices. A 2011 investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona engaged in racial profiling after entering a 287(g) agreement. Separate DOJ investigations in 2012 and 2022 have come to similar conclusions— including in North Carolina, where an investigation concluded that the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office was unlawfully detaining and arresting minorities.

Studies and investigations have shown that the 287(g) programs disproportionately target people of color, turning what should be a community of trust into one filled with fear and suspicion.

Additionally, an analysis conducted by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in 2011 found that half of all detainers issued through 287(g) were for people who committed misdemeanors and traffic offenses. While some jurisdictions were found to “target” their programs to identify individuals with serious criminal convictions, others were designed to identify as many undocumented immigrants as possible, regardless of their criminal history.

Expanding 287(g) tells communities that law enforcement is no longer here to protect them; they’re here to hand them over to ICE. But this year, Maryland chose differently, standing firm in its commitment to racial justice and human dignity.

Before President Trump’s inauguration, three counties–Cecil, Frederick, and Harford–within Maryland held agreements with ICE. Then, in alignment with the Trump administration’s heavy-handed approach to undocumented immigration, four additional counties have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE. However, the decision to prohibit additional programs and dismantle existing ones reflects the state’s commitment to their values of ending racial and ethnic profiling.

This concept is not new. California state law prohibits any law enforcement agency from forming an agreement with ICE. As a result, California remains a target of the Trump Administration. Regardless, the priority of the state is to protect the civil rights of undocumented immigrants under sanctuary policies.

On the other hand, all 67 counties in Florida have signed 287(g) agreements due to Governor DeSantis’ compliance with Trump’s administrative crackdown on undocumented immigration. This commitment has created more complications for undocumented individuals, causing them to be displaced and separated from their families.

Though not to the same extreme, six counties out of 159 counties within Georgia have agreements with ICE. Four additional counties have pending applications to agree to have TFM and JEM implemented. Expanding the number of counties in agreement will only further increase mistreatment within correctional facilities because these models have proven to exacerbate racial profiling and higher enforcement.

The Maryland General Assembly is not just leading by example; it’s setting the bar for what it means to stand up for justice in the face of fear-driven politics.

As Trump’s executive orders continue to face retaliation from Civil Rights organizations, states implementing his policy, like Florida and Georgia, are now having to choose between his extremism or pursuing their own values.

While California prohibited 287(g) in 2017, nationwide attacks on undocumented immigrants today have made it all the more impressive that Maryland chose to act now.  They chose to completely oppose Trump’s ideology, opening themselves to critique, and southeastern states should consider following Maryland’s example. Thus, supporting states will demonstrate that the nation is not willing to compromise their values for the Trump Administration’s policy.

In effect, 287(g) programs increase the fear of federal involvement, deterring undocumented immigrants from going to local police to report crimes or serve as a witness. Furthermore, these programs create opportunities to violate the due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in our Constitution. While some states have succumbed to fear and divisiveness, Maryland is showing them that it’s possible to protect public safety and human dignity without sacrificing one.

Pending Governor Moore’s approval, Maryland may soon be leading the way by showing that values of justice, compassion, and community can and must prevail over expedient politics. Maryland’s decision is not just about immigration policy—it’s about standing up for what’s right. Will other states continue to enable fear and division, or will they follow Maryland’s lead and say, “Enough is enough?”