Maryland House Chooses Criminal Illegal Aliens Over Citizens in Late Night Vote
“We don’t just hand humans over,” he said. “The bill gives a clear directive to ICE: Bring a conviction, bring a warrant.”
Not since the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which primarily focused on climate policy, has a bill been so deceptively named. The Maryland House of Delegates voted late Saturday night to approve the Community Trust Act, legislation that would expand protections for illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the state. The 92-37 vote fell largely along party lines.
The measure, which passed the Maryland Senate on Friday night by a 29-13 vote, would impose stricter limits on cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
The Baltimore Banner reported:
The Community Trust Act would block corrections officials and law enforcement from holding or detaining an individual for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless a judge has issued a warrant. The bill includes exceptions that allow ICE to be contacted when jails release individuals who were convicted of felonies or crimes listed on the sex offender registry list.
Del. David Moon, a Montgomery County Democrat, said it draws a “bright line” for jails and ICE alike to follow.
“We don’t just hand humans over,” he said. “The bill gives a clear directive to ICE: Bring a conviction, bring a warrant.”
Republican delegates introduced 20 amendments during the debate. One proposed changing the bill’s title to the “Maryland Sanctuary State Act” or the “Maryland Criminal Alien Protection Act,” according to the Banner. Clearly, those ideas were shot down.
‘MARYLAND CRIMINAL ALIEN PROTECTION ACT’: Del. Brian Chisholm, R-Anne Arundel County, in a passionate plea, attempted to amend the ‘Community Trust Act’ to be renamed the ‘Maryland Criminal Alien Protection Act.’
The amendment failed. pic.twitter.com/c3iyoKV87t
— Gary M. Collins (@realgarycollins) April 12, 2026
AMENDMENT FAILS: Md. House Republican Minority Leader Del. Jason Buckel, R-Allegany County, introduced an amendment to allow Fed immigration notification if a suspected undocumented person is charged with murder.
The amendment’s failure upholds a Fed notice ban in murder cases. pic.twitter.com/hw82RU3mWz
— Gary M. Collins (@realgarycollins) April 12, 2026
In the end, only one proposed amendment was adopted. It added an exception to clarify that certain provisions of the bill would apply “only in certain counties.” It does nothing to change the substance of the bill.
JUST NOW: After 13 amendments have been proposed to the Maryland ‘Community Trust Act,’ a bill that effectively bans federal immigration cooperation without a judicial warrant, only one amendment has been adopted after just shy of two hours of ongoing late-night debate. pic.twitter.com/LW5nbz8sNJ
— Gary M. Collins (@realgarycollins) April 12, 2026
Republicans criticized the speed with which the bill had advanced. Del. Jason Buckel, the House Republican leader, noted, “Forty-eight hours ago, no one I knew of thought this bill was going anywhere.”
This was not hyperbole. Baltimore radio station WYPR reported the legislation “seemed all but dead as of Thursday, having not been voted out of either its House or Senate committee, but its status suddenly changed with just days left in the legislative session.” The current legislative session ends on Monday night.
According to WYPR, the revival of the bill came as a result of “intensified pressure” from immigrant community advocacy organization We Are CASA before the current session ended.
Following the vote, Republican Del. Matt Morgan, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said in a statement: “Democrats are advancing criminal protection over public safety in the dark. If democracy truly dies in darkness, they just turned off the lights.”
Before the bill reaches Gov. Wes Moore’s desk for signature, the Senate must first approve several House revisions, including “a provision designating it as an emergency measure that would take effect immediately upon the Democratic governor’s approval.”
With this vote, the General Assembly has made clear it is prioritizing criminal illegal aliens over public safety.
Maryland is now a full-fledged sanctuary state. In reality, it was already well on its way. In February, the legislature passed a law banning local law enforcement from entering into ICE partnership agreements under the 287(g) program.
[Note: “The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added Section 287(g) to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), authorizing ICE to delegate state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under ICE’s direction and oversight.”]
At the time, some local sheriffs openly discussed defying the law. Among them was Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, who has said he intends to sue over the measure’s constitutionality. While I’m not a lawyer, it is reasonable to question whether a state can prohibit agreements authorized under federal law.
As I see it, states and municipalities trying to exempt themselves and their constituents from federal law is the very definition of a confederacy. And just as the original Democrat-led Confederacy resisted federal authority in order to preserve slavery, today’s Democrats are not only resisting federal authority to shield illegal aliens from enforcement, but they are impeding the government’s efforts to enforce immigration laws.
Maryland’s leaders may frame this as compassion or “community trust,” but the underlying question is far more fundamental: whether states can selectively obstruct federal law when it suits them. That tension cannot persist indefinitely. Either federal immigration law is enforced uniformly, or it becomes optional — subject to the political preferences of individual states. Sooner or later, this contradiction will have to be confronted.
Three days left in session—and Maryland Democrats just revived a bill to block ICE cooperation.
Sheriffs are already signaling defiance.
Annapolis is about to find out what happens when state mandates collide with elected law enforcement. https://t.co/kqh6qBSdur
— MDBayNews (@MDBayNews) April 11, 2026
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Even though we don’t need any more affirmation, it is telling that the Dems can reinforce the message they sent during the SOTU speech, and that PRESIDENT Trump accurately called out.
They act with a sense of impunity that may be disappearing. Remember in November.
The list of sanctuary cities and states needs to be prominently posted so that citizens can avoid them as unsafe (and unAmerican), Businesses and organizations should also avoid scheduling events in or sending personal to those states.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_b098e07e-13c7-4426-9fa4-a575ecfca11a
We need an interpretation of 8 USC s 1324 that sanctuaries for illegals are Harboring under the statute. That would make the federal death penalty applicable for Moore and his ilk if their sanctuary actions result in the death of any person
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)
The Confederacy was a great effort for a great cause. This is taking federalism past its limits, while still being part of the nation. Red states would do well to employ federalism to its absolute limit.
It frustrates me to see the political parties see their parties as more important than the well-being of our citizens. Clearly they prefer power over our well-being. They are an anchor around our necks and are dragging us down to the muddy bottom of the ocean.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Confederacy had won The War Between The States, I would be living in the Confederacy and would not be worried about illegal aliens killing me or maiming me. The south is pretty practical about issues like this.
Hell, the south would have a very effective death penalty if it weren’t for the stupid Supreme Court that put so many roadblocks in the way that you can never execute even the most obvious hideous barbaric murderers.
I would have more respect for the blue states if they just quit the union and quit nagging us to death.
Well said, sir .
You obviously understand the difference between “union” and “country.’
… and the difference between “civil war,” and secession of a state from a union prompting illegal invasion by other states.
Thank you.
Any such interpretation would simply make 8 USC § 1324 invalid. Congress can’t make a law that requires states to cooperate with federal law enforcement. The constitution protects their right to refuse. 8 USC § 1324 is only valid because it doesn’t have such a requirement.
No but Congress can and has passed a law that if you harbor an illegal and by doing so it results in the death of any person, you will be punished up to and including the death penalty
And that law is only valid if “harbor” is not defined so as to include exercising a state’s constitutional right to refuse cooperation with ICE. Any attempt to expand the definition of “harbor” to include that would not make sanctuary cities unlawful; instead it would automatically result in the entire law becoming invalid and unenforceable. So you would have achieved the exact opposite of what you want.
Much of the rhetoric around sanctuary policies would already qualify. The sanctuary policies actually adopted and implemented very often don’t match the rhetorical flourishes. IOW where the policy violates the existing statute around harbouring (and frankly more case law is needed to flesh out the limits/practical application) then State/Local officials are already subject to criminal penalties.
IMO the better course is to make it a simple choice for State/Local gov’t; cooperate with ALL Federal LEO agencies on a reciprocal basis or choose to decline ALL Federal LEO cooperation and Federal LEO agency resources. No extra funding, no joint Federal/State/Local Task Forces (which State/Local LEO often exploit for civil asset forfeiture), no access to Federal crime labs. They can basically retain access to the databases to run ID, search criminal history but that’s it.
Avoid Maryland. Another Marxist craphole.
These votes are part of the concerted long term goal of one party rule…. forever. Maybe a catchy phrase might help… like… The long March?
And the Democrat preference for hostile, foreign invaders of our country is a surprise . . . . how?
Subotai Bahadur
You can take Democrats out of the Old Confederacy, but you can’t take the Old Confederacy out of Democrats. As in 1865, this isn’t going to end well for them.
The GOP National Committee and individual GOP candidates for Senate and Congress need to run satirical advertisements for Dhimmi-crat candidates, with the tagline, “America and Americans last.”
“to clarify that certain provisions of the bill would apply “only in certain counties.”
Only in a legislature would something like THAT qualify as “clarification.”
“Maryland is now a full-fledged sanctuary state.”
Bye bye, BWI.
Pull the customs folks from both air and sea ports closing both. Plus set up immigration checkpoints on interstate and US HWY using all increased flexibility of the 100 mile border area exclusion zone to include roving patrols and searching every vessel, train, bus. Cut off all Federal LEO cooperation with Maryland until the State chooses to cooperate with ALL Federal LEO agencies and their enforcement basic mission.
That’s Culture Marxism, protect Illegals and Criminals and let them prey on citizens
This clown looks more smarmy than most other democrats and he is listed as someone the democrats might put forward to be president. God help us.
It won’t be too long where a map of the US can be depicted by crime, corruption, and debt. Right now those states are all blue but in the near future they will have skull and crossbones on each to show they are poison and a danger to anyone who enters!
No, it is not reasonable. Federal law authorizes ICE to make such agreements with local authorities, assuming those authorities are willing. It doesn’t require the local authorities to make such agreements, nor does it require the states to permit them to. It can’t require those things; that would be unconstitutional. States have the undisputed right to refuse to make such agreements, and to forbid their subsidiary entities, which are their creations and exist solely under their law, from making such agreement.
Exempt themselves from what? They have no obligation to cooperate with ICE, and the constitution protects their absolute right to refuse. It also protects the states’ right to forbid municipalities to cooperate, since municipalities are creatures of the states.
No, they are not. They are simply refusing to assist, as the constitution says is their right.
All of this has been settled law for the past 200+ years, ever since the northern states refused to cooperate with the federal slavecatchers, and forbade their employees and subdivisions from doing so, with the courts’ full approval.
The states are permitted to decline to assist in repelling an invasion? What a weird world you live in.
Crawford, I live in the world of the US constitution, of which you appear to be entirely ignorant.
The constitution protects the states’ absolute right to refuse all assistance to the federal government in enforcing its laws. This has been firmly established for at least 200 years. The “sanctuary states” of the 21st century are treating ICE in exactly the same way that the northern states treated the federal slave catchers in the mid-19th century. And the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so.
That right has been upheld over and over since then, including when states refused to help the feds enforce prohibition, when sheriffs refused to conduct background checks on gun purchasers, and when states refused to establish 0bamacare exchanges.
You are ignorant of the definition of “state.”
This deportables all had their day in court and this is the usual liberal lie.
No, they have not had a court hearing at all.
But it wouldn’t matter if they had. The point is that the state has no obligation to hand someone over without a warrant, or to allow LEO on their property without a warrant.
Let Maryland and Moore rot. No coverage, media blackout. Everyone already knows what a cesspit it and the SOS Moore are.
It is not unreasonable for a state or local government to think that it is better off with illegal aliens not afraid of local government, bringing their problems into the system, going through its court system to resolve disputes, etc. There can be a conflict between what is best for the country and what is best for the town or state, and the local governments answers to their constituents, not the whole country.
But once specific illegal aliens have committed crimes in their jurisdiction, protecting them becomes a betrayal of the city or state’s well- being not prioritizing it over federal concerns.
The easiest way to solve all of the sanctuary issues is to have Congress via the upcoming CR to add a rider prohibiting spending federal money in declared sanctuary states, cities and counties. They can have their sanctimonious sanctuary areas, they can’t have federal dollars if they maintain sanctuary areas. Problem solved.
Such an extreme measure would probably be unconstitutional and would be struck down. Congress may use its funding powers to help persuade a state to comply with its wishes, but it may not use them to compel such compliance.
That’s why when the Supreme Court upheld the federal law cutting highway funding to states that didn’t raise their drinking age to 21, it said the cut was only constitutional because it was small enough that the states could still afford to refuse compliance and absorb the cut. Had the cut been so high that the states were compelled to comply then it would have been struck down.
And that is why the Supreme Court did strike down the provision in PPACA that cut off medicare funding for states that refused to establish an 0bamacare exchange.
So Congress can condition a significant but affordable amount of funding on cooperation with ICE, but not all funding.
I applaud this move only if it inspires maga to get tougher against the leftists