Sponsor seeks limits on immigration detention in state law, including ban on for‑profit operations and Guard deployment without executive council consent

Representative Timothy Horrigan on behalf of House Bill 438 told the Executive Departments and Administration Committee that the bill updates a prior statute to protect detainees’ rights, clarify facility control and prevent state cooperation in large-scale immigration detentions.

Horrigan, sponsor and a representative from Strafford County District 10 (Durham), told the committee the bill would require facilities authorized by the state to be under civilian control, prohibit operation by for‑profit entities and require the state to avoid detaining U.S. citizens or detaining people based solely on ethnicity or national origin. "Immigration detention facilities will not be allowed to detain citizens of The United States," Horrigan said in testimony. He also said the bill would bar deploying the National Guard for deportation activities without Executive Council consent.

Nut graf: The measure seeks to codify best practices and protect civil liberties in state-authorized immigration detention settings, and to limit the state’s role in large or profit‑driven immigration detention operations. Sponsors said the bill is an update to language first considered in prior sessions and is intended to prevent abuses tied to mass deportation efforts.

Horrigan said the bill also updates references to current 2025 editions of federal and state guidance and makes explicit that facilities must not detain people based solely on national origin. He described Stratford (Strafford) County Jail as the state’s primary immigration detention site for nonviolent federal detainees and said the proposed changes would formalize practices already in place there.

Representative Grotta presented an amendment drafted by Representative Patrick Long that would remove language banning private contracts and alter language related to segregated housing; committee members asked the panel to await stakeholder availability before taking further action. Committee members questioned how the proposed language would interact with local agreements; Horrigan said that in some cases county officials describe arrangements as “agreements” rather than formal contracts but that federal payments are made to the county for services.

Ending: The public hearing closed with members indicating the item would require additional technical review and possible stakeholder meetings before committee action.