Background Image from Envato
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — As the 2026 Maryland General Assembly convenes, immigration enforcement and juvenile justice reform have emerged as two of the most closely watched policy debates, with evolving federal practices and local concerns driving sharply divergent views among lawmakers, community advocates and law enforcement.
Immigration policy is already shaping up to be a top battleground. Advocates plan to renew efforts to ban so-called 287(g) agreements, which allow local law enforcement agencies to enter into partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and help enforce federal immigration laws. Del. Nicole Williams [D-Prince George’s] and other supporters say the legislation will return this year with new momentum, aiming to end these collaborations statewide after a year of heightened federal immigration actions.
“Passing this bill is our No. 1 priority for the legislative session,” said George Escobar, incoming executive director of the immigrant advocacy group CASA, at a recent press event, describing opposition to 287(g) as essential to restoring trust between immigrant communities and local police. Supporters of the ban point to the impact of increased immigration arrests in Maryland over the past year, which advocacy groups say have fostered fear and deterred cooperation with public safety officials.
But the idea is opposed by some county sheriffs and law enforcement officials, who argue that these agreements help remove individuals who pose risks to public safety. Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins recently defended the 287(g) program, saying it has helped “remove 1,877 criminals” from his jurisdiction. He warned that ending local cooperation with ICE could undermine efforts to address crime. Some law enforcement leaders have argued the program focuses on individuals with serious charges or convictions, though critics dispute that characterization.
Tension over immigration policy also surfaced in local jurisdictions like Baltimore County, which recently agreed to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That decision drew criticism from civil rights advocates, who argue that such arrangements erode community trust and protections.
At the same time, legislators are wrestling with calls for substantive juvenile justice reform that go beyond immigration debates and touch on core questions about public safety, rehabilitation and racial equity. A key issue this year is whether Maryland should end its practice of automatically charging certain minors as adults in criminal court, a policy that critics say contributes to unnecessary incarceration and may conflict with federal juvenile justice guidelines.
According to official data, Maryland’s rate of youth held in adult detention far exceeds federal thresholds, with 119.6 per 100,000 children detained in adult facilities in fiscal 2024, more than six times the federal standard.Â
The Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging & Best Practices, established by the state and housed within the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, has recommended scrapping automatic adult charges for many offenses. The commission contends that doing so would better protect young people and improve outcomes in education, rehabilitation and long-term public safety.
“Our position is, let’s just start it in juvenile court … at least for that period of time the child will be getting services, the child will be going to school,” said Natasha Dartigue of the Maryland Public Defender’s Office, arguing against automatic adult charging for youth offenders.
But not all stakeholders agree. Some prosecutors and local officials argue that robust detention authority is needed to address crime and protect communities, and they warn that shrinking juvenile detention options could strain local resources.
Lawmakers are expected to debate a range of proposals during the legislative session — from broad reforms reducing reliance on adult court to more limited changes aimed at preserving public safety while expanding community-based alternatives. The discussions are shaped by a complex set of data, legal standards and community values that vary across Maryland counties.
For regions like Southern Maryland, these debates have concrete implications. Changes in immigration enforcement policy could affect how local law enforcement interacts with immigrant communities, including workplace reporting, access to services and public safety collaborations. Meanwhile, juvenile justice reform could shift how youth are treated in the legal system, influence county juvenile services and affect funding flows tied to detention and rehabilitation programs.
As the General Assembly takes up these issues, Maryland is poised for one of its most consequential sessions in recent years on matters of law enforcement, civil rights and youth justice. The outcomes of these debates may shape not only state policy but also the experiences of families and communities throughout the state.
Related