This bill forbids the Department of Homeland Security — including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — from establishing, operating, expanding, or reopening any immigration detention or holding facility in Washington County, Maryland. It also bars obligation or expenditure of any funds "appropriated or otherwise made available" to covered agencies for those purposes and defines covered agencies and detention facilities broadly to include contracted and intergovernmental arrangements.
The measure matters because it uses Congress’s spending and statutory-authority powers to lock in a geographically narrow prohibition on federal detention infrastructure. That approach raises immediate operational questions for DHS and its contractors, creates an explicit private right to sue in federal court (including Members of Congress and the State), and could serve as a model for other local carve-outs if enacted.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids DHS and its components from establishing, operating, expanding, or reopening any facility primarily used for civil detention or holding of noncitizens within Washington County, Maryland, and prohibits use of funds for those activities. It attaches a broad definition to "detention or holding facility," covering federal, contracted, and intergovernmental sites.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Department of Homeland Security and its components (including ICE), private contractors that operate detention sites, any local or intergovernmental partners that might host or site a facility, and Washington County residents and officials who oppose such facilities. Maryland state authorities and congressional representatives are given explicit standing to seek enforcement.
Why It Matters
The bill uses appropriations-like language and an express preemptive clause ("notwithstanding any other provision of law") to constrain federal placement and funding of immigration detention in a specific county — a granular use of congressional power that, if copied, could fragment national detention policy and invite constitutional and statutory litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core prohibition blocks DHS and its components from locating or running any facility in Washington County, Maryland, whose primary purpose is civil detention or holding of noncitizens. That ban is not limited to facilities owned directly by the federal government: it reaches any site operated under contract, under an intergovernmental service agreement, or by private entities performing the same function.
The operative funding language forbids obligating or expending "funds appropriated or otherwise made available" for those activities, which covers standard appropriations and many transfers or allocations that federal agencies use to pay contractors or reimburse local partners.
Enforcement is explicitly private and locale-specific. The bill authorizes four categories of plaintiffs—county residents, Washington County government, a Member of Congress, or the State of Maryland—to bring suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Courts may issue declaratory or injunctive relief, including orders stopping activities that violate the prohibition. That private-enforcement design makes the statutory ban self-executing in practical terms: affected parties do not need an agency to enforce it on their behalf.Practically, the bill forces DHS to reassess any plans, site searches, or contractual arrangements involving Washington County.
Agencies would need to avoid obligating funds for planning, acquisition, construction, leases, or contractor mobilization tied to a county location. Private contractors and local governments that had been negotiating with DHS would face the risk of terminated prospects and potential contract-change disputes.
Because the statute includes a "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause, it expresses Congress’s intent that the prohibition take precedence over conflicting statutory authorities, though that choice makes the measure more vulnerable to constitutional and separation-of-powers litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forbids DHS and its components from establishing, operating, expanding, or reopening any immigration detention or holding facility in Washington County, Maryland.
It bars obligating or expending "funds appropriated or otherwise made available" to covered agencies for any activity covered by the prohibition.
The statute authorizes residents of Washington County, the county government, a Member of Congress, or the State of Maryland to sue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief.
The definition of "detention or holding facility" explicitly includes facilities operated through contracts, intergovernmental service agreements, or private entities, not just federal-owned sites.
The bill includes a "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause, signaling Congress intends this local prohibition to supersede conflicting federal authorities and policies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name, the "Keep ICE Out of Washington County, Maryland Act." Short-title sections are procedural, but they also signal the statute’s policy focus and may guide judicial interpretation about congressional purpose.
Congressional findings
Lists findings about the impacts of immigration detention on communities, alleged treatment of detainees, and local concern in Washington County. Findings do not create enforceable rights, but courts often consult them when construing ambiguous statutory language; here they underscore congressional intent to prioritize local community interests and civil liberties when resolving interpretive questions.
Substantive prohibition and funding restriction
Imposes the ban on establishing, operating, expanding, or reopening detention or holding facilities in Washington County and prohibits use of funds for those activities. The language is broad: "notwithstanding any other provision of law" aims to ensure the ban takes precedence, and "appropriated or otherwise made available" extends beyond annual appropriations to other funding mechanisms, potentially limiting transfers and reimbursements commonly used by agencies.
Enforcement mechanism and remedies
Grants standing to a narrow, enumerated set of plaintiffs—residents, the county government, a Member of Congress, or the State—and directs that suits be brought in the District of Maryland. Courts may issue declaratory and injunctive relief. The provision creates an explicitly private enforcement pathway rather than relying on agency compliance or executive enforcement, which accelerates judicial review but may raise justiciability and political-question issues in litigation.
Definitions of covered agency and covered facility
Defines "covered agency" to include DHS and any component such as ICE, and defines "detention or holding facility" to include sites operated via contracts or intergovernmental agreements. The definitions make the prohibition operationally comprehensive: it applies to federal facilities, contractor-run centers, and collaborative arrangements with state or local entities, broadening the statute’s practical reach.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local residents of Washington County who oppose a detention site — the ban prevents federal placement and gives residents a statutory basis to seek court enforcement without relying on local zoning alone.
- Washington County government — gains an express statutory tool and standing to litigate to block detention facilities and to preserve local land-use priorities.
- State of Maryland — receives standing to challenge federal placement in the county and can protect statewide policy or budgetary interests affected by new detention infrastructure.
- Civil rights and immigrant-advocacy organizations — benefit indirectly because the statute reduces the likelihood of an additional detention site where advocates may litigate conditions and treatment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security and ICE — lose placement flexibility, may have to reroute planned facilities to other jurisdictions, and face potential interruptions to detention capacity planning.
- Private contractors and correctional service providers negotiating to operate facilities in the county — face loss of potential contracts and sunk costs from site development or procurement processes.
- Other localities — may see increased pressure if Washington County is removed from the host pool, shifting siting debates and community impact to neighboring counties or states.
- Federal taxpayers and agencies — could incur litigation costs defending the ban and may need to reprogram funds or accelerate alternative capacity investments that are costlier or less coordinated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits local self-determination and community protection against the federal government’s need for uniform detention infrastructure and flexibility in executing immigration laws; using Congress’s spending and statutory-authority powers to solve a local siting dispute resolves one set of harms while creating practical and constitutional friction with the executive’s operational responsibilities.
The statute’s geographic precision creates both strength and fragility. By targeting a single county it directly answers local objections, but that same narrowness raises questions about coherent national policy: if Congress carves out county-by-county prohibitions, detention siting could fragment into a patchwork that complicates DHS planning and contractual procurement.
The funding language—"appropriated or otherwise made available"—is deliberately broad and could sweep in non-appropriation transfers, reimbursable agreements, and other administrative funding mechanisms. That breadth strengthens enforcement but poses implementation challenges: agencies will need to audit funding streams and may halt legitimate, unrelated expenditures to avoid risks.
The private standing design speeds private lawsuits but invites early threshold litigation over justiciability, the appropriations power, and separation-of-powers limits, especially if the executive argues the ban interferes with its constitutional obligations in enforcing immigration laws.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.