There was no shortage of Maryland bills, arising from both sides of the aisle, attempting to address concerns around immigration enforcement, but HB 1222 took up the majority of the debate and is the only major provision to pass on that topic. Here we unpack what the bill was originally proposing to do, how the discussion went, and what are the county implications from the final law that goes into effect on June 1.

After months of committee discussions, hearings, testimony, stakeholder work groups, and spirited floor debate, HB 1222 – lawmakers’ primary immigrant protections bill – passed in the final hours of the 2025 legislative session. The bill language was a significant departure from prior versions but leadership expressed that something was better than nothing in the current immigration enforcement climate.

Statewide Considerations for Immigration Leading Into Session

There were three major factors effecting the debate around immigration enforcement during the most recent legislative session. Those were:

• a change in federal enforcement policy
• perceived implications for local law enforcement due to the federal change
• the recent murder of a Harford resident by an individual believed to be unlawfully present

First, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made clear during session that they were adjusting immigration enforcement policies to be more aggressive than had been seen under prior administrations. In particular, local ICE leadership clarified that while they were focused on targeting the “worst of the worst” offenders, they would also be detaining individuals who were apprehended alongside the target and found to be unlawfully present in the country. This was defined as “collateral taking.”

Second, this federal shift in policy prompted concerns that local law enforcement or detention centers would some how be permitted to act as field enforcement units on behalf of ICE regardless of Maryland’s current prohibition against deputized field enforcement. Testimony presented during the hearings suggest that these were mostly concerns rather than evidence of actual practice by local law enforcement or detention centers. Regardless, lawmakers were sensitive to these fears, particularly in instances where an individual might be in danger, need to call for help, but might not from fear of detainment.

Finally, the murder trial of Harford resident Rachel Morin began during the 2025 legislative session, with gruesome details of the encounter being shared widely in the media. This was alongside allegations that the suspect – Victor Martinez-Hernandez – was unlawfully present in the U.S. and had been the subject of previous investigations for violence against women and gang-related activities.

What Was In The Original Version of HB 1222?

Understandably, lawmakers felt pressure to take actions that would be in the interest of public safety but also ensure individuals from immigrant communities feel safe calling on authorities when they need help. As such the original version of HB 1222 (aka “first reader”) was introduced on February 7 by Delegate Nicole Williams, and with a long list of democrats as co-sponsors. It was widely seen as a balanced approach when considering the factors surrounding the issue. It attempted to ensure local cooperation with immigration enforcement under certain circumstances in the interest of public safety but at the same time prohibit formal agreements with ICE to ease fear and tension in immigrant communities.

While very middle of the road, this version struck a chord with some local governments and for very different reason. Although lawmakers clarified at this time that full cooperation with ICE was still permitted, the prohibition on formal agreements was seen to degrade the process by limiting resources, training, and protections from discrimination for detainees. On the other side of the discussion, some local governments with sanctuary policies were concerned about the extent of the mandate to cooperate with ICE for the detention and transfer of certain individuals.

The Deliberation in the House of Delegates

As the conversation continued in the House, a number of stakeholders and MACo brought up the legally and procedurally complicated issue of being required to hold and transfer an individual without formal documentation. Additionally, the length of the required holding for transfer was unclear. While MACo and other entities, appreciated the bill’s interest in making sure that violent offenders, who are also the subject of an immigration detainer, are not released back into local communities, the continued liability exposure to constitutional violations remained a great concern.

Lawmakers in the House of Delegates did heed this advice and adjusted the bill, at that time, to require local wardens’ cooperation with ICE if they also have a formal detainer and specified the holding period was not required to extend more than 48 hours past the expiration of an individual’s lawful sentence. Additionally, at the request of other stakeholders, they expanded the number and type of offenses that would require an individual to be transferred to ICE, which would make the list of covered individuals significantly longer. That list grew from a crime of violence to also include any felony, such as offenses like passing a bad check or driving under the influence.

What Was Discussed in the Senate?

As is sometimes the case there did not appear to be a predetermined outcome on the proposal, despite the super-majority of Democrats in the General Assembly. While both chambers expressed interest in passing a bill bringing comfort to immigrant communities and ensure public safety, they disagreed on the best way to reach that end. The Senate took a very different approach that was not as focused on mandating enforcement actions from local governments or abolishing existing programs.

As such Senate leadership did not accept the requirement to cooperate with ICE and called into question the wisdom of delineating a covered list of offenses, especially by also drawing in local field enforcement that the General assembly already banned. Additionally, while some appreciated the assurance a prohibition on 287(g) programs (federal collaboration on immigration enforcement) might bring to immigrant communities, the Senate broadly agreed that local governments should have the flexibility to cooperate with ICE as they see fit and ultimately removed the prohibition on the programs. Republicans in both chambers agreed, reiterating that prohibitions were not preferable even if they are in name only because it restricts access to additional federal resources and training and does not include necessary discrimination protections. The formality and credibility offered by a formal agreement, in their minds, was preferable to so-called handshake contracts.

What did the final version include?

Following its House passage in amended form, HB 1222 took until late March to be heard and discussed in the Senate Judicial Proceedings (JPR) Committee. When it returned to the Senate floor on the final day of the legislative session the majority of the original provisions had been struck and new language was substituted. After a number of hard votes and long debates for both republicans and democrats, the final bill was the product of a conference committee between the two chambers that ultimately adopted the Senate recommendations.

The new language essentially just replaced the original language of the bill with components from two other bills which included similar data privacy provisions as SB 977 and sensitive location protections from SB 828. As such HB 1222 now focuses on the development of standards and policies for immigration enforcement in sensitive areas of public buildings as well as, broadly, the protection of personal data held by units of government for all Maryland residents. The three major components include:

• ICE notification of enforcement actions to local authorities in sensitive locations
• a valid judicial warrant or exigent circumstances in order for ICE to access non-public areas of a sensitive location
• requirement for the Attorney General to develop guidance related to immigration enforcement at sensitive locations
• a mandate for entities to develop policies and procedures related to managing sensitive locations and the sale or resale of personal information of residents

County Requirements and Policy Development Deadlines

Local governments are required to comply with the exigent circumstance or judicial warrant standard for allowing access to non-public areas of a sensitive location for the purpose of immigration enforcement. The primary sensitive locations most likely to be operated by a local government include libraries, local health departments, public health clinics, and shelters. Attorney General Anthony Brown could also designate additional locations. Once guidance is finalized by the Office of the Attorney General for handling ICE activity at sensitive locations, local governments must implement a policy consistent with the Attorney General’s guidance by October 1, 2025.

The second requirement for local governments deals more broadly with all data containing personal information of residents. Counties, in consultation with the Department of Information Technology, must develop and implement data handling policies that prevent the sale or resale of personal records or geographic information of Maryland residents. This protected information includes physical addresses, physical descriptions, biometrics, phone numbers, and pictures. A copy of the adopted policies must be submitted to the General Assembly by July 1st, 2026.

Bill information on HB 1222 is available on the General Assembly website, including the final “enrolled” version of the bill text.

This article is part of MACo’s Deep Dive series, where expert analysts explore and explain the top county issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Deep Dives.