Maryland Attorney General Joins 19 States in Legal Challenge to Immigration Detention Policy

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, along with a coalition of 19 other state attorneys general, has filed an amicus brief challenging a new federal policy that mandates the indefinite detention of many undocumented immigrants without the possibility of bond hearings. The legal filing, submitted in the case of Bautista v. Noem, asserts that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) reinterpretation of immigration law is an unprecedented move that infringes upon due process rights and federal statutes, leading to significant harm to families, communities, and state economies.

The policy in question eliminates the right for immigrants who entered the country without inspection to request a bond hearing, a right that had been available for decades. Under the new directive, these individuals face mandatory, indefinite detention, irrespective of their personal circumstances. Many of these immigrants have resided in the United States for numerous years and have no criminal history. They are now being held in detention facilities, often described as overcrowded, unsafe, and unsanitary, for extended periods, potentially months or even years. As DHS intensifies its enforcement actions, an estimated millions more immigrants could be subjected to this mandatory detention policy.

The impact of this policy extends to families and communities. It is estimated that over nine million U.S. citizens, including more than four million children, have at least one undocumented family member. Research indicates that the detention of a parent can significantly increase the risk of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in children, while also exacerbating economic instability for entire households. Furthermore, the fear of detention discourages immigrant families from accessing essential services like healthcare and food assistance, and it can deter them from reporting crimes. This chilling effect is believed to undermine both public safety and public health, with the mandatory detention policy serving to worsen these outcomes.

Economically, the policy is argued to disrupt the workforce and negatively affect local and state economies. Undocumented immigrants represent nearly five percent of the U.S. workforce and are crucial to sectors like agriculture and construction. In 2023 alone, households headed by undocumented workers reportedly paid approximately $90 billion in taxes and contributed nearly $300 billion in consumer spending. The attorneys general contend that unnecessarily detaining these workers disrupts the labor force and has a detrimental impact on state economies. Additionally, the policy is projected to incur substantial costs for taxpayers. In 2024, immigration detention cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $3.4 billion, averaging around $152 per detainee daily. This stands in contrast to DHS’s own Alternatives to Detention program, which costs less than $4.20 per day and is reportedly as effective in ensuring court appearances. The attorneys general argue that by moving away from these more cost-effective alternatives, DHS is wasting taxpayer money without providing any added benefit.

The coalition also highlights that indefinite detention severely restricts detainees’ access to legal representation. This is particularly problematic when individuals are transferred to remote facilities, far from their families and legal counsel, which significantly diminishes their prospects of obtaining legal relief, even if they are otherwise eligible to remain in the country. The attorneys general argue that denying individuals the opportunity for a bond hearing is not only inhumane but also contradicts established legal precedents and fundamental due process protections. They emphasize that individualized assessments are a standard practice in both civil and criminal proceedings, and that immigrants should not face different treatment solely based on their immigration status. The attorneys general are advocating for the court to grant partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and to invalidate DHS’s policy.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Office of the Maryland Attorney General

---