Delaware committee advances bill banning private for‑profit detention facilities after broad public testimony

Representative Gorman presented House Bill 151 to prohibit private for‑profit companies from operating detention facilities in Delaware, saying "no private for profit company may operate a detention facility in Delaware." The bill defines a private detention facility as an operation run by a private for‑profit company under contract with government and excludes juvenile treatment, mental‑health commitment, medical and educational residential programs.

Sponsor testimony argued private, for‑profit incarceration creates incentives to keep beds full and cut costs on staffing, health care and safety; Representative Gorman cited national reporting and past abuses when private operators have been involved. Committee members pressed practical and legal questions about implementation: how state law would interact with federal contracting and zoning, whether the state could preclude a federal contract on state land, and whether the bill would restrict non‑carceral contracts such as health‑care services inside public facilities.

Assistant House Attorney Rayanne Warner said drafting attorneys and the Department of Justice had reviewed the bill and had not raised a constitutionality issue in this form; members discussed litigation in other states, including GEO Group v. Newsom in the Ninth Circuit. Representative Lynn noted the Ninth Circuit decision as persuasive but not binding and observed that litigation would be the likely remedy if a federal entity challenged the law.

A wide range of community witnesses testified in support: the ACLU of Delaware (Jovan Rich), the Office of New Americans (Ronnie Baltazar Lopez), veterans’ advocates, restorative‑justice groups and open‑government advocates. Speakers emphasized transparency concerns, oversight gaps in private operations and the moral argument against profiting from incarceration.

Representative Phillips moved to release HB151 and Representative Bush seconded. The roll call recorded one No vote (Representative Postal) and one member (Representative Shoop) recorded as not voting and requested additional time with sponsors for information; the chair announced the bill had received the votes necessary to be released and the meeting adjourned.

Next steps: staff will circulate the committee release and the bill will move toward the House calendar; committee members flagged potential litigation risk as a future issue to monitor.