House Judiciary Committee passes Community Trust Act limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities

The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance Senate Bill 791, the Community Trust Act, after a lengthy floor-level debate over how local jails and state correctional facilities interact with federal immigration authorities.

The bill, as amended, limits local cooperation in several ways: it bars local correctional facilities from detaining or prolonging an individual’s custody to investigate immigration status or at the request of federal authorities unless presented with a valid judicial warrant; it creates a requirement that the state correctional system provide notice before certain releases (the transcript discussion centered on a 48‑hour notice provision); it restricts inquiries into immigration status and place of birth except where the question is material to routine booking; and it adds civil injunctive remedies for ongoing violations. Sponsors also added a severability clause and an emergency effective date to take effect upon the governor’s signature after the required votes.

Why it matters: supporters said the measure restores due process and creates a statewide standard so counties do not adopt ad hoc agreements or voluntary practices that effectively deputize local agencies to perform federal immigration enforcement. Opponents raised concerns about operational impacts on joint task forces and whether the bill could force local facilities into conflicts with federal partners.

Key debate points and quotes: Delegate Moon, the bill’s sponsor in the House, framed the measure as creating a single statewide standard and said the bill “makes a guarantee out of that targeting of the violent and serious criminals” by ensuring ICE is notified for certain convicted individuals on release. On operational detail and the 48‑hour notice language, a heated exchange produced a practical example: “This is to say Elizabeth Embry is going to be released from prison on May 8th… You got two days to… Come get her,” the sponsor said, using a hypothetical to explain the notice purpose.

Delegates probed technical and constitutional issues. Delegate Valentine pressed for clearer wording on the 48‑hour requirement to ensure the intent is to give federal authorities a fixed notice window rather than permitting notices “within 48 hours” (which, as several members observed, could conceivably permit much shorter notice). Delegate Cardin and others questioned whether agencies would be held liable if logistical errors left them short of the 48‑hour mark; staff and the sponsor said the provision reflects current practice and that the courts would interpret compliance questions.

The committee also debated the bill’s treatment of routine booking data and whether asking “place of birth” as a booking question would be allowed; staff explained the bill preserves inquiries that are “material to routine booking,” while barring use of those queries for immigration enforcement except as the statute specifies.

Outcome and next steps: The committee recorded a roll-call vote in favor of the bill, yielding a tally reported by the clerk as 12‑6‑0‑1‑1; the Chair announced "the motion carries." The bill now moves on to the next floor or procedural step determined by the House calendar and the emergency effective date language (governor’s signature after three‑fifths approval was discussed in committee).