Committee hears risks and liabilities as House Bill 9 reshapes detention contracts and 287(g) agreements

The interim committee received an overview of House Bill 9 and its implications for local detention contracts and county liability.

"A 287(g) agreement is an agreement between a law enforcement agency and the federal government where these folks are becoming deputized as ICE officers," counsel Holly Agajanian explained, summarizing one component of HB9 that restricts local participation in civil immigration enforcement. She said HB9 also bars public bodies from entering new contracts with the federal government to hold civil immigration detainees and requires termination of certain local contracts consistent with contract provisions.

Members focused on how HB9 interacts with existing county contracts and private contractors. Agajanian said many county-to-federal arrangements shifted to direct federal contracts with private companies (CoreCivic and others) and that Otero County's situation is distinct because the county owns its facility and renewed a five-year contract that contains no termination provision. "Otero County owns their facility ... they renewed their contract for five years, and that contract does not have a termination provision in it," Agajanian said.

Sen. Cervantes warned members that counties acting contrary to state law could lose tort immunity and face large damages: "They're now acting in a way that the legislature...we don't care what you guys enact in Santa Fe. We're gonna do what we wanna do regardless of that," he said, arguing counties that ignore state law could be sued and argued not to be protected by the Tort Claims Act.

Several members raised practical concerns. Representative Buck and Rep. Townsend noted the economic role detention contracts play in some counties and warned that removing county revenue streams could have severe local economic consequences. Questions also addressed whether the federal government can lawfully contract directly with private companies when the state forbids public bodies from holding detainees; Agajanian said HB9 does not prohibit private contractors from contracting with the federal government and that the state cannot physically block federal action but can decline to cooperate.

The AG's office and the Department of Justice were described as actively engaged on enforcement options. Agajanian said she is in daily contact with the attorney general and that the AG is taking HB9 matters seriously.

Why it matters: committee members said the statute's implementation could leave counties with long-term contractual obligations, bond repayment risks and uncertain liability exposure. Members asked for further briefings on enforcement pathways, how bond covenants might be affected if revenue stops, and what remedies the state can use if a county refuses to comply.

Next steps: committee members requested follow-ups on bond documents, county contract terms (especially termination clauses), and a legal sketch of potential state enforcement or remedies and the AG's planned actions.