The primary law that establishes why the Governor of Maryland cannot unilaterally ban sheriffs’ departments from cooperating with federal law enforcement is Article IV, Section 44 of the Maryland Constitution.
This section provides:
> There shall be elected in each county and in Baltimore City one person, resident in said county or City, above the age of twenty-five years and for at least five years preceding his election a citizen of the State, to the office of Sheriff. He shall hold office for four years, until his successor is duly elected and qualified, give such bond, exercise such powers and perform such duties as now are or may hereafter be fixed by law.
Key points from this provision and related legal context:
– Sheriffs are elected constitutional officers, not appointed subordinates of the governor or any executive branch agency.
– They serve independently under the Judicial Branch of state government in many interpretations and function autonomously from the executive (governor) and legislative branches in day-to-day operations.
– Their powers and duties are “fixed by law” — meaning primarily by the General Assembly (state legislature) through statutes, or as historically defined, rather than by unilateral executive order from the governor.
– The governor lacks direct command authority over sheriffs, unlike over the Maryland State Police (which falls under the executive branch).
This constitutional structure is why any broad prohibition on sheriffs cooperating with federal agencies (e.g., on immigration via 287(g) agreements or other matters) requires legislative action — as seen with Senate Bill 245 / House Bill 444 (passed in early 2026 and signed by Governor Wes Moore). That law specifically bans formal 287(g) immigration enforcement partnerships statewide, but even it has faced pushback from sheriffs arguing it infringes on their independent “constitutional authorities.”
Sheriffs derive additional independence from historical precedent (dating back to Maryland’s founding) and common-law roots of the office, where sheriffs act as chief law enforcement officers in their counties, accountable directly to voters rather than the governor. Broader federal cooperation (e.g., on criminal investigations, sharing info under federal supremacy principles, or honoring judicial warrants) remains permissible unless restricted by statute.
In short, the Maryland Constitution (particularly Article IV, § 44) — combined with the separation of powers and sheriffs’ elected, independent status — prevents the governor from issuing such a ban on his own. Any such restriction must come through the legislative process or be upheld in court if challenged. Sheriffs in jurisdictions like Frederick, Harford, and others have publicly stated intentions to challenge or work around the recent 287(g) ban on these constitutional grounds.
-Gordana Schifanelli, Esq
