Immigration Enforcement - Sensitive Locations - Access, Guidance, and Policies (Protecting Sensitive Locations Act)
SB 828, the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, limits immigration-enforcement access at specified “sensitive locations” in Maryland. The bill bars federal personnel seeking to enforce immigration law from entering nonpublic areas of public schools, public libraries, and certain executive-branch State government locations unless they present a valid federal or State warrant or exigent circumstances exist. It also defines a broad set of sensitive locations in State Government law, including schools, health care facilities, places of worship, child-serving locations, social services sites, disaster-relief sites, courthouses, and other locations designated by the Attorney General.
The bill requires the Maryland Attorney General to develop and publish guidance for entities operating at sensitive locations, including guidance on the limits of federal immigration enforcement and the responsibilities of State agencies. It also requires the Attorney General to publish guidance on the rights and responsibilities of individuals who interact with federal immigration-enforcement personnel. Public schools, public libraries, and executive-branch units operating at sensitive locations must adopt policies consistent with that guidance by October 1, 2025, or provide written notice to the Attorney General explaining why they did not do so and include any existing policies. The guidance and policies are exempt from certain State Government Article administrative procedure requirements, and the bill is an emergency measure effective June 1, 2025.
SB 828 adds new provisions to both the Criminal Procedure Article and the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It creates a statutory framework restricting access by federal immigration-enforcement personnel to nonpublic areas of certain sensitive locations and authorizes the Attorney General to issue statewide guidance and designate additional sensitive locations. The bill also imposes policy-adoption or reporting obligations on affected State agencies, public schools, and public libraries, thereby changing how those entities must respond to immigration-enforcement activity on their premises.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support in the General Assembly, as reflected by passage in both chambers and the committee report of favorable with amendments. The vote history shows the bill advancing despite several rejected floor amendments, suggesting that the core policy had enough support to pass while some members sought to modify its scope or implementation. Overall, the legislative record indicates a positive but somewhat contested reception.
The main points of contention appear to involve the scope of the bill’s restrictions and the balance between immigration enforcement and access to public services. Rejected floor amendments suggest some legislators wanted to narrow, alter, or otherwise adjust the bill’s approach, likely concerning which locations are covered, how much discretion the Attorney General should have, or how the policy should interact with federal law and public safety. Supporters appear to favor protecting schools, libraries, health care, and other vulnerable settings from immigration-enforcement activity, while opponents or amendment sponsors likely raised concerns about enforcement authority, compliance burdens, and the breadth of the sensitive-location definition.