Proposed bill in Maryland would increase protections for personal data in immigration enforcement cases
Maryland lawmakers want to increase protections for personal data in immigration enforcement cases.
Senate Bill 977, the Maryland Data Privacy Act would prohibit state and local agencies in Maryland from sharing personal information, granting access to databases, or allowing federal agencies to enter facilities for immigration enforcement without a valid warrant.
Under the bill, anyone attempting to gain access to a government building or facility would also need a warrant and be required to disclose their name and contact information, including a phone number, email address, and physical address.
Additionally, the bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement from collaborating with federal agencies to share information for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.
Trump administration immigration crackdown
The proposed legislation comes amid a push from the Trump administration to crack down on illegal immigration, which began in January with an executive order deploying 1,500 troops to the southern border - in addition to the 2,500 who were already stationed there under federal orders.
Part of that crackdown has included lifting restrictions on where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials can operate.
Shortly after President Trump's inauguration, his administration ended a policy that prohibits ICE arrests at or near schools, places of worship, and other sensitive locations.
The executive action has sparked fear and concern among some schools and parents across the nation.
Under current law, ICE agents are permitted to enter public areas without permission, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) told CBS News.
ICE agents cannot enter private areas such as a home, or an employee-only space without permission or a judicial warrant, according to the NILC.
In another executive order, Mr. Trump attempted to end birthright citizenship by ordering federal agencies to stop issuing passports and citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not legal citizens.
More than 20 states sued Mr. Trump over allegations that the order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to individuals born on American soil.
On Feb. 13, Mr. Trump's executive order was blocked by a federal judge for the fourth time.
States challenge warning from the Justice Department
In January, the U.S. Justice Department warned that state or local officials who attempt to impede the administration's immigration enforcement efforts could face criminal charges.
"The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch's immigration enforcement initiatives. Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests," Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said in a memo.
But the warning was met with pushback from state leaders, who said that the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal laws.
"While the federal government may use its resources for federal immigration enforcement, the court ruled in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot "impress into its service—and at no cost to itself—the police officers of the 50 States," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said in a joint statement with 11 other attorneys general.
Immigration advocates push for more protections.
Advocates of the Maryland Data Privacy Act include CASA, a local immigration advocacy organization.
Earlier this month, CASA held a rally, urging legislators to pass Senate Bill 977, along with the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would require Maryland Attorney General Brown to develop guidelines for immigration enforcement at certain locations.
That bill would define sensitive locations as schools and colleges, medical and mental health care facilities, places of worship, service centers and shelters, and childcare centers or other locations where children gather. Locations, where funerals, weddings, and other religious or civil ceremonies are held, would also be considered sensitive locations under the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
38 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation. The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites. What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow." Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program. "We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker. Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy." "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said. Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
CNN
39 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
TechCrunch
39 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Moratorium on state AI regulation clears Senate hurdle
A Republican effort to prevent states from enforcing their own AI regulations cleared a key procedural hurdle on Saturday. The rule, as reportedly rewritten by Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz in an attempt to comply with budgetary rules, would withhold federal broadband funding from states if they try to enforce AI regulations in the next 10 years. And the rewrite seems to have passed muster, with the Senate Parliamentarian now ruling that the provision is not subject to the so-called Byrd rule — so it can be included in Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and passed with a simple majority, without potentially getting blocked by a filibuster, and without requiring support from Senate Democrats. However, it's not clear how many Republicans will support the moratorium. For example, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee recently said, 'We do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state.' And while the House of Representatives already passed a version of the bill that included a moratorium on AI regulation, far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene subbsequently declared that she is 'adamantly OPPOSED' the provision as 'a violation of state rights' and said it needs to be 'stripped out in the Senate.' House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the provision by saying it had President Donald Trump's support and arguing, 'We have to be careful not to have 50 different states regulating AI, because it has national security implications, right?' In a recent report, Americans for Responsible Innovation (an advocacy group for AI regulation), wrote that 'the proposal's broad language could potentially sweep away a wide range of public interest state legislation regulating AI and other algorithmic-based technologies, creating a regulatory vacuum across multiple technology policy domains without offering federal alternatives to replace the eliminated state-level guardrails.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW A number of states do seem to be taking steps toward AI regulation. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a high-profile AI safety bill last year while signing a number of less controversial regulations around issues like privacy and deepfakes. In New York, an AI safety bill passed by state lawmakers is awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's signature. And Utah has passed its own regulations around AI transparency.
