Nine county sheriffs in Maryland announced on Wednesday that they will continue working with federal immigration authorities regardless of a new state ban on the 287(g) program signed by Gov. Wes Moore. The 287(g) program is a federal initiative that pairs local law enforcement departments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate directly on immigration enforcement and other law enforcement operations. Moore, a Democrat, signed the ban on Tuesday, effectively ending official memorandums of understanding between Maryland police agencies and ICE.

Democratic state lawmakers have acknowledged that the new ban cannot actually prevent sheriffs from cooperating with ICE outside of the formal 287(g) framework, and the nine sheriffs have pledged to establish their own individual policies to maintain their working relationships with the federal agency.

The issue has sparked a fierce debate between state officials and local law enforcement leaders over the limits of gubernatorial authority and the practical implications of the ban. Critics of Moore's move argue that the ban is largely symbolic and does little to protect public safety, while supporters contend it sends a necessary message about the state's immigration enforcement posture. What has emerged, however, is an unusually candid admission from Democratic lawmakers that the ban's reach is far more limited than its rhetoric suggests.

Sheriffs Speak Out at Joint Press Conference

At a joint press conference on Wednesday, the nine sheriffs made clear they view the governor's action as an affront to their mission. Breitbart reports that Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis offered his assessment of the situation. "It is the biggest betrayal to law enforcement and public safety that I have ever seen," Lewis said. "This is a sad day for Maryland, it really is. This is a sad day for Maryland."

Lewis also warned that eliminating the formal program would not diminish ICE's presence in the state. "The abolishment of the 287(g) program is not the abolishment of ICE. They're going nowhere," he said, according to WBAL-TV.

"In fact, they're going to intensify their efforts. Mark my words, you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of ICE in this state," Lewis continued. Each sheriff at the press conference echoed the same central point: the ban only prevents formal enrollment in the 287(g) program and does not prohibit informal cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Carroll and Harford Counties Forge Their Own Paths

Among the most proactive responses came from Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees, who has already created an internal department policy that will allow his office to continue collaborating with ICE. According to the sheriffs, that policy does not conflict with the newly signed ban because it operates entirely outside the 287(g) framework. DeWees's approach is expected to serve as a model for other counties considering similar workarounds.

Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler was equally direct about his intentions. "So we go forward still in partnership. Even if it's not formal, even if the MOUs are banned," Gahler said. He explained that his office would continue providing ICE with information about individuals arrested in his jurisdiction.

"We're going to provide ICE with the information of those people we arrest, so that they can file detainers," Gahler added. The sheriffs' unified stance suggests that the practical impact of the governor's ban may be minimal in jurisdictions where law enforcement leaders are determined to maintain federal partnerships.

Democratic Lawmakers Concede the Ban's Limitations

Perhaps the most revealing development has been the candid acknowledgment from Democratic legislators that the ban has clear constitutional constraints. One unnamed Democratic lawmaker told WBFF, "We cannot say you cannot work with ICE; there is federal supremacy. So we can say, and we can make it state law, that there can't be any formative agreement." This admission underscores a tension between the political messaging surrounding the ban and its actual legal enforceability.

Former Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican who previously led the state, weighed in on Wednesday. "Yesterday, in my state, they just passed a bill. Gov. Moore signed an emergency bill to prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. And, you know, all the local law enforcement officers are saying, 'We're going to ignore that because we're required to work with them,'" Hogan said, according to the Hill.

Hogan also acknowledged the complexity of the debate. "So, I get the whole, you know, overreach and overstep and doing the wrong things, but, you know, when they have violent criminals that they're holding in jail that ICE wants to be detained, they, you know, they shouldn't be let back on the street. So there are two sides to this argument," he said. Maryland is not the only state grappling with this issue; New Mexico recently enacted a similar law prohibiting implementation of the 287(g) program within its borders.

Lessons to Learn

1. Community members should understand how federal and state law enforcement interact in their jurisdictions. Knowing whether your local sheriff participates in immigration enforcement programs — formally or informally — can help residents make informed decisions about engaging with local authorities and understanding their rights during encounters with law enforcement.

2. Regardless of political debates, individuals should be aware of the legal protections available to them under both state and federal law. Staying informed about policy changes at every level of government is essential, particularly when those changes may affect how police agencies operate in your neighborhood.

3. It is important to recognize that policy disputes between state and local officials can create uncertainty about how laws are enforced in practice. Residents should seek out reliable information from official sources rather than relying on secondhand accounts. No matter what precautions people take, the effects of policy conflicts can impact anyone, and we should never blame individuals caught in the crossfire of these disputes.

Why This Story Matters

This story matters because it reveals a significant gap between political action and practical enforcement that directly affects communities across Maryland.

When state leaders pass laws that their own colleagues admit cannot fully be enforced, public trust in government institutions is at stake.

The ongoing tension between state authority and local law enforcement discretion will likely shape how immigration policy is carried out in Maryland and potentially influence similar debates in other states across the country.