HB0495 creates a state-law immunity from immigration arrest for certain people attending court proceedings in Maryland. Specifically, an individual who is acting in good faith and is attending, going to, remaining at, or returning from a court proceeding as a party or potential witness, or who is a family member or household member of a party or potential witness, would be protected from immigration arrest unless the arrest is authorized by a valid judicial warrant. The bill defines key terms such as “civil immigration violation,” “family member,” “household member,” and “immigration arrest.”
The bill also prohibits making an immigration arrest in violation of that immunity and establishes criminal penalties for violations. A standard violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. If the prohibited arrest results in serious bodily injury, the offense becomes a felony punishable by up to four years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. In addition, affected individuals and the Attorney General may seek declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorney’s fees and costs. The bill states that it does not prevent law enforcement or court personnel from acting in good faith to maintain public safety in a courthouse.
The bill’s impact on Maryland law would be to add a new section to the Criminal Procedure Article creating a state-level protection around courthouse attendance and immigration enforcement. It would affect immigration-related arrests tied to court appearances, potentially limiting cooperation or enforcement actions in or around courthouses unless supported by a judicial warrant. It also creates new civil enforcement options and criminal liability for violations, expanding the legal consequences for conduct that interferes with the protected court-related activity.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, so there is no documented floor or hearing sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and assignment to the Judiciary Committee. Based on the text, the bill appears intended to protect access to the courts and reduce fear of immigration enforcement among litigants and witnesses, while preserving courthouse safety authority. Because there is no transcript or vote history, specific support or opposition cannot be identified from the provided materials.
Notable points of contention likely center on the balance between immigration enforcement and access to justice. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting parties, witnesses, and their families from being deterred from court participation, while critics may object to restricting immigration arrests or creating state penalties for conduct tied to federal immigration enforcement. The exception for arrests supported by a valid judicial warrant and the carve-out for good-faith public safety actions suggest the bill attempts to narrow, but not eliminate, enforcement authority in courthouse settings.
HB0495 would add Criminal Procedure § 2-104.3 to Maryland law, creating a statutory immunity from immigration arrest for certain individuals connected to court proceedings and authorizing both criminal and civil remedies for violations. It would impose misdemeanor and felony penalties on persons who make prohibited immigration arrests, allow private suits and Attorney General enforcement, and define the scope of protected persons and conduct. The bill would primarily affect immigration enforcement practices around courthouses, court personnel, law enforcement, litigants, witnesses, and their family or household members.
No committee transcript or vote data is provided, so there is no measurable recorded sentiment from hearings or floor action. From the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a court-access and due-process protection, suggesting likely support from advocates for immigrant rights and judicial access, and likely concern from those favoring broader immigration enforcement. The inclusion of a judicial-warrant exception and a public-safety carve-out indicates an effort to address enforcement and safety concerns while preserving the bill’s core protection.
The main point of contention is the tension between protecting access to court proceedings and limiting immigration enforcement near courthouses. Supporters would likely argue that fear of arrest can deter parties and witnesses from appearing in court, undermining the justice system. Opponents may argue that the bill interferes with federal immigration enforcement, creates state criminal penalties for immigration-related arrests, and could complicate courthouse operations. The bill’s exceptions for valid judicial warrants and good-faith public safety actions appear designed to respond to those concerns.