Committee advances Immigrant Safety Act to bar county contracts for ICE detention

The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee voted 4-2 to recommend passage of House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, after a lengthy hearing that featured sworn expert testimony and dozens of public speakers.

Sponsor Representative Miguel Chavez presented the bill as a measure to stop New Mexico public bodies from serving as pass-throughs for federal immigration detention. He told the committee this “is not a private prison ban” and said the bill would “prohibit New Mexico public entities from entering into agreements to detain people for civil immigration violations, requiring public entities with existing agreements to use their contractual rights to terminate those agreements when the law goes into effect, and prohibiting New Mexico public entities from selling or leasing public land or property for immigration detention.”

Supporters argued the measure would protect detainees and immigrant communities. Sophia Genovese, managing attorney at the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, said the bill is constitutionally grounded and pointed to federal case law in multiple circuits. “If New Mexico passes HB 9, we will become the eighth state to pass such legislation,” Genovese said. She cited DHS oversight findings and the Tenth Amendment as legal bases for the state to decide not to participate in federal immigration detention operations.

Jessica Ines Martinez, director of policy and coalition building at the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, described human consequences and local impacts: “Breaking the connection between New Mexico's counties and federal immigration enforcement authorities will promote cooperation and communication between New Mexico's immigrant communities and local officials and make everyone in our state safer.” Martinez and other witnesses described allegations of inadequate medical care, reports of in-facility abuses, and a 2022 DHS Office of Inspector General inspection that urged depopulation of the Torrance County Detention Facility.

Multiple community organizations and advocates testified in favor of the bill, including New Mexico Voices for Children, the New Mexico Dream Team, Conservation Voters New Mexico, Equality New Mexico, the National Organization for Women, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of New Mexico and others. Testimony included first- and second-hand accounts of detained people’s experiences, general public-safety and family-separation harms, and the observation that New Mexico hosts a disproportionate share of ICE detention beds.

Committee members questioned constitutional and fiscal implications. Representative David Block asked how the bill interacts with the Supremacy Clause and cited federal statutes; witnesses responded the measure targets what state and local public entities may do and does not attempt to regulate federal agencies or private contractors. Representative Block also raised the 2019 GEO Group v. Newsom litigation when discussing related California laws; testimony cited circuit-level rulings that have upheld IGSA bans in several jurisdictions.

Committee members from rural counties raised budgetary concerns. A member questioned possible bond defaults tied to county facilities, noting Otero County debt associated with a detention facility; witnesses said reserve funds exist and counties could repurpose facilities, but also acknowledged repurposing would have costs and logistical limits. Representative Block and others expressed concern about job loss and local economic impacts if detention contracts end.

Procedural actions in committee included a motion to table the bill that failed on a 2-4 recorded vote (two in favor, four opposed). The committee later voted 4-2 to give HB 9 a do-pass recommendation. The committee record shows Representatives Miguel Romero and Liz Thompson among the yes votes for the do-pass recommendation and Representatives David Block and (Representative) Lord among the no votes. The bill will move on to the next stage of the legislative process.

Ending details: The bill as presented would focus on civil immigration detention contracts and carve out narrow exceptions (witnesses referenced a temporary investigatory-detention exception). Several committee members requested additional legal and fiscal analysis and clarifications about definitions and effects on county bonds and employment before floor consideration.