Keep ICE Out of Washington County, Maryland Act

Bill Number

H.R. 7470

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-02-11: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

Last Updated

2026-05-16T08:07:11Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The legislation, titled the "Keep ICE Out of Washington County, Maryland Act," aims to prevent the establishment or operation of federal immigration detention facilities in Washington County, Maryland, by prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from using such sites. It emphasizes protecting local communities from the negative effects of these facilities while respecting local land-use decisions.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on Facilities: DHS and ICE are barred from establishing, operating, expanding, or reopening any immigration detention or holding facility in Washington County, Maryland. This applies regardless of other existing laws.
• Funding Restrictions: No federal funds allocated to DHS or its components can be used for these prohibited activities.
• Enforcement Mechanisms:
• Residents of Washington County, the county government, Members of Congress, or the State of Maryland have the legal right (standing) to file lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to enforce the prohibition.
• Courts can issue declaratory relief (clarifying the law's application) or injunctive relief (court orders to stop violations).
• Definitions:
• Covered agency: DHS and its parts, including ICE.
• Detention or holding facility: Any site primarily used to hold noncitizens (people who are not U.S. citizens) for immigration purposes, whether run directly by the government or through contracts with private companies or local agreements.

The bill also includes congressional findings highlighting community impacts (e.g., on health, housing, and services), concerns about due process violations, inhumane detention conditions, denial of medical care or legal access, and the importance of local input in land-use planning.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a targeted geographic ban on immigration detention facilities, overriding general federal authority to site such operations without specific congressional approval for this location.
• Explicitly conditions federal funding to enforce the prohibition, limiting DHS's flexibility in immigration enforcement.
• Grants broad standing for enforcement lawsuits, which expands who can challenge federal actions compared to standard legal requirements where only directly harmed parties might qualify.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Restricts DHS and ICE's ability to manage immigration detention in Maryland, potentially requiring them to redirect resources to other states, which could strain national operations or increase costs elsewhere.
• On Citizens and Residents: Shields Washington County residents from local burdens like strained public services, health risks, or community disruption associated with detention centers; supports local control over development.
• On Noncitizens: May limit detention options in the region, possibly leading to transfers to distant facilities, which could affect access to family, legal counsel, or medical care.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly influence perceptions of U.S. immigration policy by highlighting domestic opposition to detention practices.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Agencies: DHS and ICE, as they face operational and funding limitations.
• Local and State Governments: Washington County officials and the State of Maryland, who gain tools to protect community interests.
• Residents and Communities: Washington County inhabitants, particularly those concerned about local impacts on infrastructure and quality of life.
• Immigration Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on detainee rights, who may support the bill's emphasis on humane treatment and due process.
• Noncitizens: Individuals subject to immigration detention, whose holding locations could be altered.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Reinforces Congress's power to control federal spending and facility use (under the Constitution's appropriations clause), but could face challenges if seen as interfering with executive branch immigration enforcement duties.
• Constitutional: Addresses due process concerns in findings by limiting facilities linked to alleged rights violations; the expanded standing for lawsuits may test judicial interpretations of who can sue the government.
• Political: Reflects tensions between federal immigration priorities and local opposition, potentially setting a precedent for community-specific bans on federal projects; introduced by Rep. McClain Delaney, it underscores partisan divides on immigration policy.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6]

Recent Actions

• 2026-02-11: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
• 2026-02-10: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-02-10: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-02-10: Introduced in House
• 2026-02-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Keep ICE Out of Washington County, Maryland Act — issued 2026-02-10 — PDF (4 pages)