Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law - Restrictions on Access to Information (Maryland Data Privacy Act)
Summary
SB 977, titled the Maryland Data Privacy Act, restricts how state and local agencies, and persons who obtain certain government records, may share personal information when the purpose is federal immigration enforcement. The bill defines “covered records” as copies of data or records made by a unit or instrumentality of state or local government that contain personal information, and generally bars sharing those records for resale or in exchange for value. It also prohibits disclosure of personal information to federal agents or agencies for immigration enforcement unless the requester presents a valid warrant issued by a federal or Maryland court, and it limits access to photographs and facial-recognition searches for the same purpose.
Impact
The bill amends provisions in the Business Regulation, General Provisions, and Public Safety articles of the Maryland Code. It expands existing restrictions on disclosure of public records and personal information, adds new limits on access to databases, buildings, and facilities by individuals seeking information for federal immigration enforcement, and bars state and local agencies from entering memoranda of understanding that require collaboration with federal immigration authorities for that purpose. It also requires reporting to the General Assembly, directs the Attorney General to enforce the law and establish civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, and subjects state employees who violate the act to discipline, including termination.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed third reading in the Senate by a comfortable margin, and the committee report was favorable with amendments, indicating broad backing for the bill’s privacy and immigration-related restrictions. However, the floor vote history shows several rejected amendments, suggesting that some senators sought to modify the bill’s scope or implementation and that there was meaningful debate over its details.
Contention
The main points of contention center on the bill’s limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and the breadth of the information-sharing restrictions. Opponents or amendment sponsors appear to have tried to narrow or alter provisions related to access to records, databases, facial recognition searches, and requirements for warrants or identification before access is granted. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a privacy and civil-liberties measure that prevents misuse of state-held data, while critics likely saw it as constraining law enforcement cooperation and creating administrative burdens for state and local agencies.