(NEW MEXICO) — The New Mexico Senate voted 24–15 on February 3, 2026, to pass House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, setting up a major change in how New Mexico public entities may participate in federal civil immigration detention once the bill is signed and takes effect.
The measure previously cleared the House on January 30, 2026, and now goes to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. The Governor has publicly said she intends to sign it.
Until signature, publication, and an effective-date framework are confirmed in the enrolled bill and official notices, counties, municipalities, and contractors should treat the bill as pending, not yet enforceable law. The immediate next steps are administrative enrollment, gubernatorial action, and publication through state processes, followed by implementation planning and likely legal scrutiny.
Warning: Signing is not the final chapter. Detention-related bills often prompt rapid litigation seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. That can pause enforcement while a court reviews legality.
What HB 9 does: limits on state and local participation, not federal power
HB 9 targets the “infrastructure” that allows federal civil immigration detention to operate through state and local involvement. It seeks to stop New Mexico public bodies from doing business that results in civil immigration detention in local facilities or on public property.
At the same time, the bill does not amend federal immigration law. DHS and ICE retain federal authority to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act, including arrest and detention authority in federal law.
For example, DHS detention and arrest authority is grounded in INA §§ 236 and 241, and related regulations in 8 C.F.R. parts 236 and 241.
Key provisions and enforcement pathway
HB 9’s central operational rules are structured around contracts, deputization, and public property. The bill focuses on how public bodies enter into and maintain relationships that enable civil immigration detention.
The enforcement pathway centers on contract prohibitions, termination requirements, and the availability of injunctive relief by state prosecutors to enforce compliance.
Below are the core provisions described in the bill and how they are likely to operate in practice.
- Ban on detention contracts with federal civil immigration authorities. HB 9 prohibits New Mexico public bodies from entering into, renewing, or extending agreements to detain people for federal civil immigration matters. In practice, that is aimed at intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) and similar arrangements that allow ICE to hold detainees in county-linked facilities.
- Required unwinding of existing IGSAs. The bill requires existing IGSAs to be terminated at the earliest date permitted by contract terms. That language matters. It suggests the end date may depend on notice clauses, renewal periods, or termination-for-convenience provisions already in the agreement.
- Ban on 287(g) agreements. HB 9 prohibits 287(g) partnerships, which are formal agreements under INA § 287(g) that can authorize trained local officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions. This is often described as “deputization.” It typically includes interviewing, issuing detainers in some models, or processing under ICE oversight.
- Restrictions on public land and facilities. HB 9 bars selling, leasing, or using public property for immigration detention purposes. That provision can affect deals where a county leases land, provides utilities, or acts as a “pass-through” entity for a private operator.
- Enforcement through injunctive relief. The bill authorizes the New Mexico Attorney General and district attorneys to seek injunctions to compel compliance. Injunctive relief can move quickly in state court, and it can include orders to stop contract performance.
Deadline: Entities with detention-related agreements should review termination clauses now. “Earliest date permitted” often turns on written notice and cure periods.
Federal context: what DHS/ICE may still do, and preemption flashpoints
As of February 4, 2026, DHS and ICE had not issued a press release specifically about the bill’s final Senate passage. However, federal messaging on similar state efforts has been consistent: federal immigration operations may continue even where states restrict cooperation.
An ICE spokesperson statement to media dated February 3, 2026, said DHS conducts enforcement across the country and is working to expand detention space. A DHS memorandum summary dated January 8, 2026, attributed to Secretary Kristi Noem, also emphasized federal primacy in enforcement.
That sets up the central legal tension: preemption. Under the Supremacy Clause, states cannot nullify federal law. But states often argue they can choose how state resources and property are used.
Litigation, if filed, may test where a state’s control of contracting and land ends, and where it conflicts with federal objectives. What to watch next includes lawsuit filings, motions for emergency injunctions, agency guidance to contractors, and any shift toward direct federal procurement rather than county-linked structures.
Facilities most discussed, and how implementation may unfold
Three detention sites are commonly cited in connection with ICE detention in New Mexico: the Otero County Processing Center, the Cibola County Correctional Center, and the Torrance County Detention Facility.
Implementation will likely depend on the site’s ownership and contracting model. County-owned facilities, privately operated facilities, and mixed arrangements may each present different legal and operational paths forward.
- County-owned or county-controlled facilities may face faster operational changes if the county is the contracting counterparty to ICE, or if county assets are central to the arrangement.
- Privately operated facilities may explore alternative structures, including direct federal contracting, new land arrangements, or different service-provider roles. Those approaches may still be contested if public land use, municipal services, or pass-through agreements remain involved.
Operationally, a wind-down can require transfer logistics, staffing adjustments, vendor contract changes, and coordination with ICE on detainee movement. Those transitions can also become the subject of emergency court filings, either to compel compliance or to block enforcement.
Warning: Contract restructures designed to bypass a new statute can trigger quick injunctive litigation. Counties and operators should seek counsel before modifying agreements.
Economic and fiscal considerations counties may need to evaluate
HB 9 has raised warnings from some rural officials about revenue loss, employment impacts, and exposure tied to facilities built or upgraded around detention income. Counties may also face capital financing and debt-service pressure if detention revenue declines before planned payoff schedules.
These financial issues often show up in legislative debates and may appear in court declarations. They can affect arguments about irreparable harm in injunction proceedings, but they do not, by themselves, determine legality.
Local officials and finance officers should inventory revenue sources linked to detention, review bond covenants and loan documents, and model cash-flow scenarios. That planning can inform both litigation positions and transition strategies.
Humanitarian context and advocacy perspectives
Supporters, including civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, argue HB 9 is a safety and accountability measure. They cite conditions of confinement concerns and the limits of local oversight when detention is driven by federal civil immigration goals.
Advocates have also pointed to ICE custody death figures as part of the policy debate, including reported nationwide deaths in 2025 and early 2026. Those statistics can focus public attention, but they do not establish causation for any specific facility.
Co-sponsor Sen. Joseph Cervantes, speaking on February 3, 2026, framed the bill as a values-based choice, saying, “We’re better than this.”
How to verify status and track implementation
Readers should confirm the bill’s current posture through primary sources. Start with the New Mexico Legislature’s bill page for the enrolled text and action history.
Check the Governor’s newsroom for signing statements and effective-date information. For federal posture, monitor DHS public updates and ICE ERO reporting. If litigation is filed, look for docket entries and any temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction that could pause enforcement.
The section above leads into an interactive tool that will surface the enrolled bill link, the Governor’s statement, and live litigation dockets. Use the tool to view primary-document links, official notices, and the latest filings.
Recommended actions and timeline
Public bodies, facility operators, and impacted employees should plan on a fast-moving post-signature period.
- Within days. Obtain the enrolled bill and confirm the effective date and any implementation language.
- Within weeks. Inventory all detention-related contracts, land leases, MOUs, and service arrangements. Focus on termination and notice provisions.
- Ongoing. Monitor for lawsuits and injunctions that could change compliance obligations overnight.
- For immigrants and families. Expect that ICE arrests may continue, even if local detention space contracts change. Consult counsel quickly if a loved one is detained, moved, or faces transfer.
Resources
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
