The Department of Justice has filed suit against Maryland and state Attorney General Anthony Brown, making the case that the DOJ sues Maryland over sanctuary policies on the ground that the state’s Community Trust Act is preempted by federal immigration law. The action, announced by the DOJ Office of Public Affairs, was filed alongside simultaneous complaints against Massachusetts and Rhode Island challenging state laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance to undocumented immigrants.
The Preemption Argument at the Core of the DOJ Suit
The government’s case rests on two distinct preemption theories. First, it argues that federal law expressly displaces state authority in immigration matters, drawing on the Constitution, Acts of Congress, and Supreme Court precedent. Second, it contends that the Community Trust Act conflicts so directly with federal operations as to be implicitly overridden.
Central to the conflict is the Laken Riley Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law on 29 January 2025, after the Senate passed it 64–35 on 20 January 2025 and the House approved it 263–156 on 22 January 2025. The statute mandates federal detention of individuals unlawfully present in the United States who are accused of theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, or any crime causing death or serious bodily injury.
The DOJ filing argues that Maryland’s law obstructs that federal detention mandate. Under the Community Trust Act, the lawsuit states, state and local officers are generally barred from honouring immigration detainers, providing custody-status information to federal authorities, or facilitating the transfer of individuals to federal immigration custody, even when agents present a federal administrative warrant.
Worcester County Jail and the Immediate Consequences
The government points to a concrete incident to ground its case. On 29 May 2026, the warden of Worcester County Jail in Snow Hill, Maryland contacted a federal Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer to confirm the facility would no longer honour ICE detainers or notify ICE of individuals ready for release, citing the Community Trust Act. A scheduled ICE pickup that morning was denied as a direct result.
The filing includes two further counts based on constitutional immunity: that the Maryland law unlawfully purports to regulate federal law enforcement, and that it discriminates against immigration agents in their official capacity.
The suit was filed as part of a broader directive. Acting Attorney General Blanche had instructed the Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal law or impede lawful federal operations, and the Maryland action falls squarely within that mandate.
Sheriffs Had Already Moved Against the Community Trust Act
The federal filing was not the first legal challenge to the statute. The majority of Maryland’s 24 sheriffs filed a separate civil suit in federal court on 27 May 2026, seeking to block the Community Trust Act, predating the DOJ action by roughly six weeks. According to WTOP, the sheriffs argued the law prevented them from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in ways they considered part of their lawful duties.
The DOJ’s entry into the litigation drew a swift response from that group. Reporting by the Baltimore Sun on 13 July 2026 indicated the sheriffs said the federal lawsuit validates their earlier challenge.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward stated in the DOJ’s press release: ‘Federal immigration officers merely enforce the laws that our Nation’s elected representatives in Congress passed, reflecting the will of We the People. When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced.’
The DOJ’s preemption doctrine in this context is not novel. Courts have long recognised that federal authority over immigration derives from an enumerated constitutional power, and that state laws which obstruct the execution of federal immigration enforcement face a high bar for survival. The Texas Immigrants and Legal Citizenship organisation has published analysis of the Laken Riley Act’s interaction with the pre-existing mandatory detention framework under the Immigration and Nationality Act, noting the statute significantly expanded the categories of individuals subject to federal custody.
Subject to any onward proceedings, the Maryland case will be a test of how far a state can legislate to limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement before a court finds the balance tips into unconstitutional obstruction. With similar suits now pending against Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the outcome will carry consequences well beyond Maryland’s borders.
