(Mexico Senate Passes House Bill 9 Immigrant Safety Act Restricting Detention Contracts”>NEW MEXICO) — New Mexico will end state and local participation in federal civil immigration detention when the Act House Bill 9 (HB 9) Hearing”>Immigrant Safety Act, House Bill 9 (HB 9) takes effect on May 20, 2026, after Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the measure on February 5, 2026.
The change is legislative, not judicial: HB 9 is a state law that restricts what New Mexico state and local governments may do with respect to federal civil immigration detention. It does not repeal federal immigration authority. ICE retains authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to arrest and detain noncitizens in removal proceedings. But the law is designed to remove New Mexico’s counties, jails, and public land assets from that federal detention infrastructure.
Deadline: The operational pivot point is May 20, 2026. Agencies and contractors typically use the period before the effective date to review contracts, renewal clauses, and wind-down options.
1) Overview: New Mexico ends participation in federal immigration detention
At a high level, HB 9 bars New Mexico public entities from entering into, renewing, or extending certain agreements that support civil immigration detention. Civil immigration detention is detention related to removal proceedings, not punishment for a criminal conviction.
The key practical distinction is timing. Between signature and the effective date, existing relationships may continue unless altered by renewal or extension. After the effective date, public entities must comply with the new prohibitions, which can change how detention capacity is supplied within the state.
HB 9 also targets state and local involvement. It does not prevent federal officers from conducting enforcement actions. DHS has publicly emphasized that ICE arrests will continue nationwide and that the agency is working to expand detention space through other means, including contracting strategies. See DHS’s newsroom for federal communications at dhs.gov/newsroom.
2) Key provisions of the Immigrant Safety Act (House Bill 9)
IGSA restrictions. HB 9’s centerpiece is the ban on entering into, renewing, or extending an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) with ICE for civil immigration detention. An IGSA is a contract framework. It is often used when ICE pays a county or local jail to detain people for immigration purposes.
Operationally, this matters because IGSAs are a major pathway for ICE to secure bed space in county-owned or county-linked facilities. Without new or renewed IGSAs, counties may be forced to exit the immigration detention business over time, subject to existing contract terms.
287(g) ban. HB 9 also bans INA § 287(g) agreements. A 287(g) agreement is a formal arrangement in which DHS delegates certain immigration enforcement functions to trained local officers. Ending or forbidding 287(g) participation may reduce local-to-federal “handoff” pipelines from jail custody into ICE processing.
Public land restrictions. The law further restricts the sale or lease of public land for construction of new immigration detention facilities. That provision is aimed at expansion planning. It can limit the state or local government’s role in siting new detention facilities, even if federal demand increases.
Scope limits. HB 9 regulates what New Mexico public entities may do. It does not itself stop ICE from using detention space in other states, or from attempting alternative contracting models that do not require New Mexico public entities as counterparties.
Warning: People in ICE custody may still be transferred out of New Mexico. Transfers can affect access to counsel, family contact, and court scheduling.
3) Affected facilities and geographic impact
The law is expected to be felt most in counties where detention operations are closely tied to county ownership or county contracting.
Facilities frequently discussed in connection with HB 9 include the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, plus the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia and the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, both managed by CoreCivic.
Why structure matters: a county-owned facility that relies on an IGSA may face more direct constraints under a state/local participation ban than a facility operating under a different legal arrangement. Conversely, a privately managed site may try to re-route contracting through federal-private channels, depending on the underlying property interests and existing agreements.
Key uncertainties to watch include whether contracts are characterized as renewals or extensions, whether bed space is replaced elsewhere, and whether detainees are moved to neighboring states such as Texas or Arizona.
4) Official statements and federal context
State restrictions like HB 9 often trigger federal-state tension framed as “preemption.” Immigration enforcement is federal, but states control many aspects of local governance, contracting, and land use. Litigation in other jurisdictions has frequently turned on whether a state law regulates immigration itself, or instead regulates state resources and procurement.
DHS has signaled opposition to state-level limits, stressing continued nationwide enforcement and detention expansion efforts. DOJ leaders have also indicated willingness to sue jurisdictions viewed as obstructing federal policy.
Supporters in New Mexico, including lead sponsor Rep. Eleanor Chávez, have framed HB 9 as a public safety and community-protection measure meant to reduce fear and uncertainty in immigrant communities.
5) Significance in the national landscape
New Mexico becomes the ninth state to adopt a detention-partnership limit, joining states such as California, Illinois, Washington, and others. The trend matters because immigration detention capacity is partly a geography-and-contracting problem. When one state restricts local participation, detention may be displaced to other jurisdictions, to different contract structures, or to facilities with different ownership profiles.
The timing also matters. Congress funded substantial detention growth in 2025 through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” and DHS has discussed expanding capacity. State restrictions can therefore shape where expansion happens, even if they do not reduce federal enforcement goals.
6) Impact on individuals and communities
Supporters argue the law may improve community trust. If local police are not deputized under 287(g), and if county jails are not financially tied to immigration detention, some victims and witnesses may be more willing to report crimes or seek help.
Opponents, especially in rural counties, argue detention contracts support local budgets and jobs. Those debates often focus on tax revenue and wages tied to facility operations. The reported figures in Otero County have been cited as significant, but the long-term effect will depend on contract wind-downs and any replacement revenue.
For families and counsel, the most immediate risk is transfer. When a detained person is moved farther away, visitation and attorney access may become harder. Immigration court proceedings are administered by EOIR. Venue and logistics can shift when a person is detained in another state, and federal court review can depend on circuit jurisdiction.
7) Implementation timeline and next steps
Implementation usually turns on contract language and procurement processes.
Between now and May 20, 2026, counties and agencies typically: – inventory IGSAs and related detention service contracts, – assess whether upcoming actions count as a renewal or extension, – review land-use and leasing plans implicated by the public land restriction, and – prepare compliance guidance for staff.
Potential litigation is possible. Early signs include a federal complaint filed in district court, a motion for a temporary restraining order, or requests for preliminary injunctions. Any injunction could delay enforcement, but outcomes are fact-specific and jurisdiction-dependent.
Action item (next 30–60 days): If you or a family member is detained in New Mexico, ask counsel to track potential transfers and confirm where the immigration court case is calendared.
8) Official sources and where to read the full text
Readers can verify the legal text and official statements through primary sources. The New Mexico Legislature posts HB 9’s text and history at nmlegis.gov. The governor’s signing announcements are typically posted in the governor’s newsroom at governor.state.nm.us/newsroom/. Federal statements are commonly routed through DHS communications at dhs.gov/newsroom. For a civil society perspective, the ACLU of New Mexico has published commentary and reactions, which are not legal authority but can provide context.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources: – AILA Lawyer Referral – Immigration Advocates Network
