By Shanel Moya Aguero
In recent weeks, residents across Maryland have filled county council chambers, organized protests, and raised alarms about the possible arrival of federal immigration detention facilities in their own backyards. In Howard County and Washington County, the concern is immediate. Local officials are scrambling for legal options. For residents, this is not a theory exercise. It is about what may show up in their backyard and what it will demand from local systems.
The central tension here is not whether immigration enforcement is federal. It is. The real question is how federal supremacy coexists with state responsibility. A common, but very incomplete, reading of the Supremacy Clause treats federal authority as a trump card that ends the conversation. If Washington acts, states like Maryland must stand down.
Clean, simple, and wrong.
The Constitution does not make federal power boundless. Federal law preempts state law only when Congress acts within its authority, and when there is a direct, unavoidable conflict between state and federal rules. Courts do not invalidate state laws for hypothetical tensions or political inconveniences. Courts look for clear conflicts. If none exist, which is often the case, then there is room for states to operate.
For most of U.S. history, states have acted in areas that touch immigration without regulating immigration itself. They license businesses and facilities, set zoning rules, enforce labor standards, and protect public health and safety. The real line has never been immigration versus no immigration; it is about which level of government governs which domain. That is not a loophole, it is federalism.
The Tenth Amendment makes this even clearer. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, the federal government cannot force states to carry out federal programs. Maryland is not required to provide staff, facilities, or regulatory support to make federal detention easier. Choosing not to participate is not obstruction; it is how the Constitution is designed to work.
Legitimate State Interests?
Maryland has legitimate, concrete interests at stake. Across counties, there are Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances that require review when large facilities expand or change use, including detention centers. The logic is straightforward. Counties must be able to support added strain on hospitals, emergency services, roads, and water and sewer systems. Detention facilities can create fiscal and social spillovers. Maryland law already tells local governments to account for those impacts.
The Maryland Values Act of 2025 adds a clear layer of protection. It limits state and local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, restricts ICE access to sensitive places like schools, libraries, and hospitals, and safeguards personal data held by public entities. Gray areas remain, especially with 287(g) agreements that link local law enforcement to federal immigration work, but the law sets a firm baseline. Its purpose is simple: protect community trust, draw clearer lines, and ensure Maryland’s systems serve Maryland’s residents first.
House Bill 630
Maryland’s General Assembly is now considering House Bill 630. It has a hearing Wednesday, Feb. 18. This bill sets basic guardrails by requiring that detention centers are placed in buildings designed for housing or detaining individuals. The aim is practical: safety, health standards, and oversight. If people are going to be held, the facility should be built for that purpose.
On its face, HB 630 sits comfortably within state authority over land use, health and safety. There is no federal statute that forces states to enter into a detention agreement with ICE. The process has historically been a voluntary agreement between the states and the federal government. Federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), places that the responsibility for securing detention space on ICE, not the states. States have no obligation to provide buildings or facilities for federal detention purposes.
While immigration is a federal problem, the health, safety, and usage of land within states is not. Put plainly, there is no Supremacy Clause conflict here.
Still, this is not a cure-all. The bill only applies when detention centers are privately owned and depend on state and local officials’ approval. When the federal government already owns and operates property, state leverage narrows.
Strategic Innovation Paths
Maryland can still act within its lane. Neutral health and safety standards, inspection regimes, and transparency requirements are standard exercises of state police power. Independent monitoring and public reporting on facility impacts add accountability without regulating immigration itself.
Federalism gives states room to use these tools and to test policy boundaries; from marijuana laws to consumer protection, states act and courts refine the limits. That is not rebellion, it is how the system works.
Fear of litigation should not paralyze policymakers. Lawsuits are part of federalism. Courts draw the lines where necessary. Communities are facing real consequences as a result of the federal government’s actions; this isn’t political theatre. Lawmakers have a duty to protect residents’ health, safety, and fiscal stability, even when it invites a legal test.
Maryland’s choice is not defiance or deference. It is leadership over passivity. If states are laboratories of democracy, then hard questions like this are exactly what those labs are for.
Recent Comments