No Sanctuary, St. Mary’s

Sheriff Signs Agreement

The debate over local immigration enforcement has escalated in St. Mary’s County since the November 2024 election of President Donald Trump. In December 2024, the conservative group America First Legal sent a letter to Commissioner President Randy Guy accusing the county of violating federal law by acting as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Maryland Attorney General’s Office clarified in January 2025 that ICE detainers are voluntary and not legally binding. Local law enforcement can, but are not required to, share information with federal agencies. These legal nuances reflect a fractured immigration system where federal, state, and local policies are increasingly at odds.

The issue gained renewed visibility in February, when Board of Education member Dorothy Andrews raised questions about St. Mary’s being labeled a “sanctuary” jurisdiction during Commissioner Scott Ostrow’s town hall, where Ostrow denied the claim. But the topic resurfaced at the March 5th Commissioners meeting, where Ostrow led a unanimous vote to send a letter supporting Delegate Todd Morgan’s HB1188 which would mandate local compliance with ICE detainers and require officers to verify immigration status through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). 

At the March meeting, Commissioner Mike Hewitt expressed concern over St. Mary’s being listed by ICE as a non-cooperative jurisdiction. Sheriff Steve Hall emphasized, “I would never want to put our county, our taxpayers, in jeopardy if I am operating outside of the law,” and affirmed that his office arrests anyone who breaks the law “regardless of a person’s immigration status.” He is actively working to have St. Mary’s removed from ICE’s non-compliance tracker.

I covered these developments in more detail here.

Days before the March 5th Commissioners meeting, Sheriff Hall signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), officially enrolling the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) in the controversial 287(g) program. Less than three weeks later, Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, co-signed on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sealing a deal that expands immigration enforcement authority at the local level. 

The agreement between ICE and SMCSO lays out a detailed framework for cooperation. The language suggests it is a matter of public safety: “The purpose of this collaboration is to promote public safety by facilitating the custodial transfer of specific aliens in [SMCSO] jail/correctional facilities to ICE for removal purposes at the time of the alien’s scheduled release from criminal custody.”

But behind that clinical language is an expansion of federal authority into local jails. Under the agreement, local law enforcement officers can be “nominated, trained, and approved by ICE to perform certain limited functions of an immigration officer within the jail.” These officers will be trained on “relevant administrative, legal, and operational issues tailored to the immigration enforcement functions to be performed,” and must pass an exam with a minimum score of 70%, with only one opportunity to retake the test.

Once approved, they’re issued credentials from ICE and authorized to serve and execute warrants related to immigration violations. Specifically, the MOA grants two primary authorities: to serve arrest warrants for immigration violations on individuals in custody at the time of their scheduled release, and to serve warrants of removal—effectively transferring custody of the individual to ICE.

The person will be held up to 48 hours after completing their local sentence for ICE to pick up unless there is an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) in place where the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) will “continue to detain, for a reimbursable fee, aliens for immigration purposes.” If not picked up in 48 hours, the person will be released from custody. IGSAs were outlawed in Maryland by the 2021 Dignity Not Detention Act.

The MOA makes clear that “LEA’s are responsible for all costs–extra payroll to support training, travel, salaries, benefits, overtime, etc.” ICE may provide training materials and may grant “travel orders to selected personnel and reimburse travel, housing, and per diem expenses only,” but the bulk of the financial burden falls on local taxpayers.

There are also legal implications. Local officers deputized under 287(g) “will enjoy the same defenses and immunities from personal liability for their in-scope acts that are available to ICE officers,” so long as their actions comply with the agreement.

Concerns about ICE’s reach into local government found some traction in the Maryland General Assembly earlier this year. House Bill 1222, introduced to ban local participation in 287(g), passed the House in March 2025. The bill’s original language would have prohibited sheriffs from entering into agreements like the one signed in St. Mary’s. But in the Senate, the bill was gutted. Lawmakers removed the 287(g) ban and instead replaced it with provisions limiting ICE’s access to public facilities and to immigrants’ personal data. The amended bill passed both chambers.

Senate President Bill Ferguson acknowledged the disappointment but pointed to real-world consequences. “We have to recognize the very true reality that there are consequences that have been issued from the federal government about what happens with states that do not comply with certain immigration orders,” he told Bolts Magazine.

This political dance reflects Maryland’s dual identity: a blue state with deeply red pockets, especially in rural counties like St. Mary’s. All seven Maryland counties participating in 287(g) have Republican sheriffs—Carroll, Garrett, St. Mary’s, Washington, Cecil, Harford, and Frederick.

Proponents of the agreement frame it as a way to protect the public by removing “criminal aliens.” According to the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, between 2016 and 2023, 445 of the 771 people detained under the state’s 287(g) agreements had no criminal convictions at all. Most of the remaining detainees had been convicted of minor misdemeanors.

These findings fuel the argument that the program does more to sow fear than to ensure safety. Critics say 287(g) damages the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, making people less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations. Others worry about civil rights abuses, especially when local officers without deep immigration training begin executing federal warrants.

Even within the agreement itself, tensions are acknowledged. “If a conflict arises between an order or direction of an ICE officer or a DHS or ICE policy and the LEA’s rules, standards, or policies, the conflict shall be promptly reported... who shall attempt to resolve the conflict.” In other words, the risk of legal gray areas is baked into the deal.

The Trump administration has not stopped at jail-based programs. In February, it revived another version of 287(g) known as the “task force” model. Unlike jail agreements, this version “empowers local officers to conduct immigration enforcement in the course of everyday policing.” So far, no Maryland counties have joined that initiative.

St. Mary’s County’s 287(g) agreement is more than a bureaucratic contract. As the national debate over immigration intensifies, St. Mary’s County has joined a growing number of jurisdictions where the line between public safety and political symbolism is increasingly difficult to draw. That’s especially true as distance grows between federal and state laws around immigration.