Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detention Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County committee advances bill to bar permits for privately run immigration detention facilities
Summary
The Economic Development Committee approved expedited Bill 13-26 to define “immigration detention facility” and bar county building or occupancy permits for privately owned facilities; an amendment seeking to require federal procedural compliance split the committee and will be taken up at full council.
The Montgomery County Economic Development Committee on Wednesday voted to forward expedited Bill 13-26 to the full council after debating an amendment aimed at giving staff additional tools to scrutinize potential detention facility permits.
The bill, introduced as an expedited measure, would add a definition of “immigration detention facility” to county code and prohibit the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) from issuing building or use-and-occupancy permits to privately owned immigration detention facilities. A county attorney briefed the committee that the definition—covering structures used "in whole or in part" to house or detain people for civil immigration matters—will require case-by-case permit review.
Proponents framed the bill as preemptive protection for residents. "ICE is not welcome to do so here in Montgomery County," a sponsor said during opening remarks, adding, "we want to make sure that every resident feels welcome, safe and protected and we are being proactive." Supporters noted testimony from a March 24 public hearing describing poor conditions at detention sites and community disruption.
A councilmember proposed an amendment intended as a practical workaround to constitutional limits on local authority over federal functions: instead of an absolute ban, the amendment would require applicants to submit documentation showing compliance with specified federal procedural laws (for example, NEPA and the APA) before DPS would accept or approve a permit. Staff said the approach was designed to provide DPS with transparency and evidence it could use if litigation followed, and emphasized that the requirement was not meant to transform DPS into a federal regulator but to ensure applicants supply documentation of processes and environmental assessments.
Members split over the amendment’s likely legal effectiveness. Some said the added documentation and procedural hurdles would delay or deter private operators; others expressed skepticism that such requirements would withstand a court challenge to local restrictions on an exclusively federal function. After debate the amendment vote resulted in a tie and will be considered at the full council.
The committee then moved the underlying bill and approved it unanimously to be scheduled before the full council. Committee members said the measure is one of several local legislative responses that neighboring jurisdictions have used — including zoning and permitting approaches — to attempt to block privately run immigration detention facilities.
What happens next: The full council will consider the bill (and the tied amendment) at a future meeting; the committee indicated it will provide a date once the calendar is set.
