Immigration Enforcement - Expanding Sensitive Locations, Notification, and Guidance (Maryland Values Act of 2026)
SB0810, the Maryland Values Act of 2026, expands state restrictions and guidance around federal immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations,” especially public schools, libraries, courthouses, and certain other public-service sites. The bill adds public school security personnel, school resource officers, principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors, and certain other school employees to a new set of rules limiting their involvement in federal immigration investigation and enforcement activities at schools. It also requires school personnel who are notified of immigration enforcement at a school to alert the county superintendent or designee.
The bill broadens Maryland’s definition of sensitive locations to include designated school bus stops, school vehicles, and locations that distribute food to individuals in need, in addition to existing categories such as schools, libraries, health care facilities, and courthouses. It directs the Attorney General to issue and annually update guidance on how state and local entities should respond to immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, and requires public schools, public libraries, executive branch units, and courthouses to adopt or update policies consistent with that guidance. The bill also limits access to nonpublic areas of sensitive locations for immigration enforcement purposes unless officers present a valid federal warrant or exigent circumstances exist.
The bill amends the Criminal Procedure, Education, and State Government Articles of the Maryland Code. It creates new obligations for public school personnel to notify school leadership when immigration enforcement is reported at a school, prohibits school security personnel from participating in federal immigration enforcement functions or sharing student and employee information for that purpose except in response to judicial process, and expands the state’s sensitive-location framework to cover additional places and activities. It also requires statewide policy development and annual updates by the Attorney General and affected public entities, while expressly tying implementation to privacy laws and excluding the guidance and policies from certain administrative procedure requirements.
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support, with passage in both chambers by clear majorities and notable minority opposition. The absence of committee transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the final enactment and emergency-measure language indicate that supporters viewed the bill as a public-safety, privacy, and immigrant-protection measure that needed prompt implementation. The overall sentiment appears favorable among the majority coalition, with enough dissent to show the issue remained politically contested.
The main points of contention likely centered on immigration enforcement authority, local cooperation with federal agents, and the balance between public safety and immigrant protections. Opponents likely objected to restricting school personnel and limiting access for immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, while supporters likely emphasized protecting students, families, and vulnerable populations from disruptive or collateral enforcement actions. The bill’s expansion of sensitive locations to bus stops, school vehicles, and food-distribution sites, along with annual policy updates and notification requirements, are the provisions most likely to have drawn debate.