Maryland AG Joins Multi-State Effort to Uphold Warrant Requirements for Immigration Arrests

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown is part of a significant coalition of 22 state attorneys general that has intervened in a federal appeals case to defend a lower court’s order. This order mandates that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers adhere to established legal safeguards when carrying out warrantless arrests. The coalition’s involvement aims to ensure that federal immigration agents operate within the boundaries set by Congress, thereby protecting both the public and the integrity of the legal system.

The legal challenge, known as Ramirez Ovando v. Mullin, is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In an amicus brief, the group of attorneys general argues that the preliminary injunction against ICE is in the public interest. This injunction requires federal immigration officers to follow existing legal limitations before making an arrest without a warrant. Federal law permits such arrests only when there is probable cause to believe an individual is unlawfully present in the country and poses a significant risk of escaping before a warrant can be obtained. The coalition’s stance emphasizes that these statutory requirements are not discretionary but are legally binding mandates for ICE.

The initial preliminary injunction was issued by a federal district court in Colorado. The court found evidence that ICE officers had engaged in unlawful warrantless arrests without adequately determining whether individuals were likely to flee before a warrant could be secured. Furthermore, the court later determined that ICE continued to make arrests in defiance of this injunction, leading to the federal government’s appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

A central focus of the coalition’s argument is the critical importance of the “flight-risk” requirement. This provision necessitates an individualized assessment by federal agents to confirm that a person is likely to abscond before they can be arrested without a warrant. The states contend that when this safeguard is disregarded, it can lead to a cascade of negative consequences for communities. These include disruptions to education as students may be afraid to attend school, negative impacts on local economies due to business disruptions, avoidance of essential medical care, and a general erosion of trust in law enforcement. This diminished trust can make individuals, including potential victims and witnesses, less inclined to report crimes, thereby hindering public safety efforts.

The attorneys general involved argue that the injunction does not impede legitimate federal immigration enforcement efforts. Instead, they assert that it compels immigration officers to operate within the parameters established by Congress. By ensuring federal agents act within their lawful authority, the injunction serves to protect the public from the broader harms that can arise when such authority is exceeded. The coalition includes the attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, in addition to Maryland.

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

Video Spotlight