The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit July 9, 2026, against the state of Maryland and state Attorney General Anthony Brown in federal district court, arguing that the Community Trust Act unconstitutionally interferes with federal immigration enforcement. The 33-page complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction blocking the law.
The Community Trust Act, also known as Senate Bill 791, was passed by the Maryland General Assembly this year as emergency legislation and took effect in late May 2026. The law limits when local police and jails may cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Key provisions: Local authorities are prohibited from holding a person on an ICE detainer without a judicial warrant, except in cases involving felonies or sex offenses. Jail staff are barred from asking detainees about their immigration status. The governor's office has said the law does not completely ban coordination with federal authorities, and that cooperation continues for people convicted of serious crimes.
The DOJ argues that immigration regulation is an exclusive federal power and that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by obstructing federal enforcement and improperly regulating federal activities. Deputy Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Brett Shumate outlined the department's position, saying sanctuary policies undermine federal law enforcement. The state characterizes the law as a trust-building measure between police and residents.
As a specific example, the complaint cites an incident on May 29, 2026: The warden of the Worcester County jail notified ICE that because of the new law, the facility would no longer honor detainers, transfer people to ICE custody, or notify the agency of pending releases, and that same morning refused a scheduled transfer of a detainee. The DOJ says this shows the law's effects are not hypothetical but already in operation.
Gov. Wes Moore did not sign the bill; under Maryland law, it took effect without his signature. Moore has acknowledged "implementation problems" with the law. His office declined to comment on the active litigation but said the law does not entirely prohibit coordination with federal agencies and that the state will not allow ICE to "deputize" local police for immigration work.
Legislative leaders defend the law as a public safety measure, arguing that people are more willing to contact police when they do not fear that any interaction could lead to immigration detention. Immigrant advocacy groups called the lawsuit political pressure on the state. Attorney General Brown's office declined to comment.
The dispute follows Maryland's rapid passage of a ban on 287(g) agreements, programs that give local police some immigration enforcement powers. Moore signed that ban in February 2026, and nine sheriff's offices were forced to immediately end their ICE agreements, including Frederick County, which had one of the oldest such partnerships in the country.
The law also has opponents within law enforcement: In late May, 17 of Maryland's 24 sheriffs sued the state, arguing the law hinders coordination with ICE regarding people who pose a public safety threat. The DOJ lawsuit is the 21st in a series of similar challenges against Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and other jurisdictions with sanctuary policies.
While the law remains in effect and the lawsuit proceeds, Maryland's rules stay unchanged: Local jails are not required to hold someone for ICE without a judicial warrant, except for the specified exceptions. The outcome of the case could alter those rules.
The case has implications beyond Maryland. If the federal government succeeds in overturning the restrictions, the ruling could be used against similar laws in other sanctuary states and cities. If the court sides with Maryland, it would strengthen the position of such states. Legal observers consider the case a significant test of immigration federalism — the limits of state authority in an area the federal government considers its own.
The case has been assigned to the U.S. District Court for Maryland. The next steps include the state's response to the complaint and likely motions for preliminary relief. No substantive ruling has been issued, and conclusions about the outcome are premature.