Committee approves ban on local immigration-enforcement agreements, 8–3

The Judicial Proceedings Committee approved Senate Bill 245 on Jan. 27, voting 8–3 to move the measure forward. The bill would prohibit the state, units of local government, county sheriffs and their officers or agents from entering into immigration-enforcement agreements and requires that any existing agreements be terminated by July 1, 2026.

Senator James, who introduced an amendment and described it as grounded in a report distributed to the committee, said the change would narrow enforcement in correctional settings. "This amendment…requires for these programs to continue, they must be targeted on serious violent criminals," he said, adding that it would require outreach to affected communities and public reporting so residents could "know that what you're doing is trying to remove only the violent serious criminals." He moved the amendment for consideration and debated its elements at length.

Committee counsel summarized the amendment as an alternative to an across‑the‑board ban: rather than outlawing agreements, the amendment would prohibit certain actions by state and local correctional officers unless an individual had been charged with or convicted of a felony; require reporting of those actions to the Governor's Office of Crime Prevention and Policy with public data release; and require local policies that communicate with communities.

Several members questioned how the bill would operate in jurisdictions that do not use formal written agreements but nonetheless cooperate with federal immigration authorities. One member asked whether Montgomery County’s intake and screening practices would permit consistent identification of detainers at the point of intake; counsel and the chair said county policies and correspondence had been provided and emphasized the variation across jurisdictions.

Opponents raised concerns about due process and the risk of unintended consequences if uniform agreements were removed without an alternative, while supporters argued that formal agreements have enabled procedures that can bypass local due process and that removing those agreements would force closer local scrutiny and greater transparency.

After extended debate, the committee voted and Chairman Smith announced the result: "Senate Bill 245 passes, 8 to 3." The transcript does not record subsequent steps in the legislative process.

What happens next: The committee-recorded passage of SB245 (8–3) was announced during the session; the transcript excerpt does not specify the bill's next procedural destination or any amendments that were finally adopted to the enrolled text beyond the amendment discussion recorded during debate.