20:44

News Story

House votes mostly on party lines to approves three emergency immigration measures

The bills target the federal government’s mass immigration enforcement policies by challenging detention centers, allowing civil suits for civil rights violations

The House passed three more bills Thursday aimed at challenging the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement activities, voting mostly along party lines for the emergency measures.

Republicans decried the measures that they said amounted to little more than virtue-signaling, repeatedly saying it would be bettte to “work with our federal partners” to capture serious, violent criminals who are in the country illegally. Fighting the federal government, they said, would just lead to the military-style deployment seen in other states.

But Democrats who spoke on the floor, during less than an hour of debate total on the three bills, said the measures support immigrant communities and will help to stop the Trump administration’s harsh immigration enforcement tactics here.

“What we are seeing from the [federal] administration is an authoritarian regime, so bills such as this one I am proud to support for our state and help protect those most vulnerable,” Del. Lorig Charkoudian (D-Montgomery) said after the session, in which the House voted 96-38 for a bill she sponsored, House Bill 351.

That bill would allow Maryland officials and residents to sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights. The House also voted 98-37 for House Bill 1018, which sets minimum standards for jails, prisons and immigration detention centers, and 98-36 on House Bill 1017, prohibiting approval of privately run immigration detention centers in areas that are not zoned for the use.

All three bills exceeded the three-fifths needed for approval being designated as emergency measures. Del. Frank Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore City) was the only Democrat to vote against HB 351 and HB 1018.

The bills now head to the Senate, where a version of HB 351, the No Kings Act, is confident about its chances. There are also Senate versions of the detention center bills, but the outlook for them is murkier.

The bills are the latest in the national debate over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics endorsed by President Donald Trump (R), that have seen clashes and led to the shooting deaths in Minneapolis last month of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by immigration agents.

In the first month of this 90-day legislative session, lawmakers approved, and Gov. Wes Moore (D) signed, a new law has sign into law to restrict so-called 287(g) agreements between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement agencies. Several sheriffs who have such agreements said this week they are still contemplating a legal challenge to the new law.

‘Hold them accountable’

The House Thursday passed HB 1017, sponsored by Del. Melissa Wells (D-Baltimore City), without derbate.. A Senate version sponsored by Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) has been assigned to that chamber’s Rules Committee.

The House passed HB 1018, sponsored by Del. Vaughn Stewart (D-Montgomery), after about 35 minutes of debate. It would require the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services “to adopt regulations establishing certain minimum mandatory standards governing the care, custody, and conditions of civil detainees in immigration detention facilities.”

A Senate version of HB 1018 has also been assigned to the Senate Rules Committee.

Several Democrats mentioned a Washington County warehouse bought recently by ICE for conversion to a 1,500-bed immigrant detention center. Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) sued Monday to block that project for failing to obtain required environmental reviews, provide public notice or discuss with state or local officials.

Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s) said Brown “did the right thing and sued the federal government” over the center.

“We have to hold them accountable to follow their own policies and procedures. When the federal government fails our citizens, we have to step in and protect them,” Alston said.

[Sheriffs make plea for restraint, as House, Senate weigh more immigration enforcement limits]

But House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick) said the Democrats’ bills would just make it harder for the federal government to capture violent criminals.

“I feel like you are making my community less safe,” he said. “I’m tired of the virtue signaling. There has to be reasonable policies to address individuals that commit violent crimes in our communities and to coordinate with our federal partners if they also happen to be here illegally.”

Stewart disagreed, saying the detention center bill “is simply applying health and safety standards to all jails in the state. That’s it.”

‘A fishing expedition’

Legislators debated HB 351, sponsored by House Majority Leader David Moon (D-Montgomery), for less than 15 minutes, but the debate was passionate.

Del. Elizabeth Embry (D-Baltimore City) said the bill would give the attorney general, a state prosecutor or state’s attorney the ability to get information about federal officials, who are often masked or unidentified, using cellphone or GPS data or other standard police surveillance tactics, if someone filed a misconduct claim against the official. The bill was also amended to include language from House Bill 332, the No Kings Act sponsored by Charkoudian, that would allow a civil claim against anyone who violated another’s constitutional rights “under color of law.”

Del. Matt Morgan (R-St. Mary’s) said the bill should be renamed the “Maryland State Police KGB Act – 2026. This bill’s a tragedy.” Del. Lauren Arikan (R-Harford) called it “nothing but a fishing expedition.”

“We have, in fact, invited the federal government to have to increase their presence in our state and now we are wailing about how it has actually occurred,” Arikan said. “Sometimes it feels like the JV league, we do this all the time.”

There was no Senate version of HB 351, but Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery) is the lead sponsor of that chamber’s No Kings Act. He said there could be some tweaking to HB 351, but he’s confident it will pass.

He conceded that some of the bills “will have constitutional risks,” but added that, “These are dire times.”

“I believe that this bill is 100% constitutional, but the most important thing is that it’s the right thing to do,” Waldstreicher said.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.