Justice Department sues Maryland over sanctuary policies in federal immigration fight

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown on July 9, 2026, accusing the state’s sanctuary policies of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.

The case escalates a dispute between the federal government and states and localities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. DOJ says Maryland policies have operational consequences when federal officials seek to take people into federal custody after presenting routine immigration detainers.

The department alleges that facilities in Maryland have refused to facilitate transfers to federal custody after those detainers were presented. The allegations are now part of a federal court case and have not been resolved by a judicial ruling.

What the Justice Department is challenging i

At the center of the lawsuit are Maryland policies that DOJ says restrict or obstruct cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The department argues that those policies are preempted by the Supremacy Clause, the constitutional provision the federal government is invoking in its challenge.

That argument does not by itself establish that Maryland’s policies violate federal law. The lawsuit sets out the department’s claims, while the court will determine whether those claims support the relief the federal government is seeking.

DOJ’s announcement links the Maryland case to a broader campaign against state and local policies it considers obstructive. The department says it has brought 20 lawsuits as part of that effort.

A broader federal enforcement campaign i

Acting Attorney General Blanche directed the Justice Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws and practices that impede federal operations. The Maryland lawsuit is being pursued through the department’s affirmative-litigation work.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate are among the Justice Department officials identified in connection with the department’s enforcement effort. The department describes the Maryland case as part of a nationwide series aimed at policies that limit state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The approach puts questions of federalism and public safety before the courts. Maryland’s policies affect how state and local facilities respond when federal immigration authorities ask for access to people already in state or local custody. DOJ’s allegations focus specifically on transfers sought through immigration detainers.

What happens next i

The filing begins a legal process in which Maryland and Brown will have the opportunity to respond to the Justice Department’s claims. The court will then consider the parties’ arguments and any requested relief under the governing law.

The Justice Department’s announcement does not resolve whether Maryland must change its policies, and the filing does not establish that any particular detainee transfer was unlawfully blocked. Those questions will depend on the litigation and any ruling that follows.

For states and local governments with similar sanctuary policies, the Maryland case is a signal that the federal campaign is continuing beyond a single jurisdiction. DOJ’s stated goal is to challenge laws and practices it believes interfere with federal operations, while the legal outcome will determine how far federal authority reaches in this area.

The case therefore carries implications beyond Maryland. It presents a direct test of whether state and local limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement can stand against the Justice Department’s claim that federal authority preempts them.

Sources

• Justice Department Sues Maryland Over Sanctuary Policies, U.S. Department of Justice
• Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch Press Releases, U.S. Department of Justice

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

⇄Ask Interactive NewsRelated NewsDive deeper into these stories and how they connect.→

• Court orders back pay after ruling Comey’s firing unlawful
• Two PSLF appeals dismissed; a third remained pending
• D.C. Circuit revives faith groups’ bid to limit worship-site enforcement
• Judge rules Maurene Comey’s removal violated federal law