Judiciary panel advances bill restricting local immigration enforcement agreements, mandates notice for specified convictions

The House Judiciary Committee on March 14 voted to report favorably on House Bill 1222, a measure that would bar state and local units from entering most immigration-enforcement agreements and require certain notice to federal authorities when specific convictions occur.

The bill, as amended in committee, directs that an employer or agent of a state or local correctional facility must notify federal immigration authorities within 48 hours before release if an individual “is the subject of an active immigration detainer request and has been convicted on or after 06/01/2025” of enumerated offenses. Delegate Ben Williams, the bill sponsor, told the committee the provision is prospective and limited to convictions after the June 1, 2025 effective date.

"If someone has been convicted of any of these things ... an employer agent of the state or local correctional facility shall provide notice of the release of the covered individuals within 48 hours before the release," Delegate Williams said, describing the 48-hour notice requirement and the provision intended to avoid extending custody beyond lawful detention.

The amendment adopted in committee lists a range of offenses that trigger mandatory notification, including specified crimes of violence, certain controlled-substance felonies, motor-vehicle offenses in defined circumstances, and Interpol notices. The amendment also requires units of local government that currently have or seek formal immigration-enforcement agreements (commonly known as 287(g) agreements) to terminate such agreements by a specified date, effectively prohibiting new agreements of that type under state law.

Supporters said the bill standardizes practice across jurisdictions and prevents municipal partnerships that deputize local officers for federal immigration enforcement. "We're not going to be effectively deputized by ICE," one supporter said in committee debate, urging a statewide standard.

Opponents including members representing counties that participate in or rely on 287(g)-style arrangements said the changes would eliminate a tool local governments use to identify individuals with serious, sometimes out-of-jurisdiction records. "2 87 gs exposes people here flying under the radar committing egregious crimes," Delegate (name recorded in transcript as Eric Ann) said, citing local cases she said were identified only because of the program. Several members warned the bill could reduce trust between immigrant communities and police, making victims less likely to report crimes.

The committee also debated whether the bill's prospectivity (applying only to convictions on or after June 1, 2025) would miss people with prior serious convictions; proponents said prior convictions would typically already have been detected through fingerprinting and national criminal databases.

A floor report is next; the committee adopted the amendment by a recorded count on the amendment vote and later moved the bill to a favorable report. The transcript records the amendment vote as adopted 12–8. The bill as amended was moved and reported favorably by the committee.

The debate reflected a broader state-level contention over the balance between local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and efforts to preserve community trust in policing. The bill next proceeds to the full House for consideration.