Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek is calling upon state lawmakers to pass legislation outlawing the construction of new immigration detention centers in the upcoming legislative session next year, but previous court cases from other states suggest that such a law may not be enforceable.
The governor made her comments at a Friday press conference where she was asked what more she and state leaders could do to support Oregonians amid the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, during which federal agents have shot people, conducted warrantless arrests and smashed car windows. Research from immigrant rights advocates has shown that counties with such centers are more likely to see immigration-related arrests.
“I would like to see a bill that we can have here in Oregon to never allow detention facilities in the state of Oregon,” Kotek told reporters. “We don’t have one now. I don’t think we should have them. We need to stop that.”
Kotek’s office declined to comment further Tuesday about the kind of legislation or specifics she would like to see. An unnamed spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that the agency has no new facilities to announce “at this time” and said that the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause “makes it clear that sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”
Oregon is already one of a few states in the nation which doesn’t have an overnight, large-scale immigration detention facility for the federal government. The state is home to processing facilities in cities such as Portland where detainees are temporarily held and released or transported to long-term holding detention in Tacoma, Washington. State law for decades has prohibited local or state governments from participating in immigration enforcement without a court order.
A 2021 state law already bans the creation of private immigration detention centers in the state, and future legislation could attempt to expand that ban by attempting to change how state-run public services such as utilities or permits are granted for such projects. But in both New Jersey and California, federal courts in recent years have struck down similar laws.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 ruled a California law banning private immigration detention centers in the state was unconstitutional, finding it violated the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which prevents states from impeding federal operations. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025 struck down a New Jersey law banning private prison companies from creating contracts with federal immigration authorities to operate the centers in the state.
“Only the federal government has the power to decide whether, how and why to hold aliens for violating immigration law. It alone has the power to make these contracts in the first place,” the New Jersey decision reads. “So this ban is in substance a direct regulation; it destroys the federal government’s marketplace.”
Call for action follows Newport Settlement
Concern over a potential immigration detention facility in Oregon comes after the Trump administration admitted in federal court that it was interested in using the U.S. Coast Guard site at Newport’s municipal airport for a temporary processing or holding facility for immigration detention.
Critics saw the move as an attempt to violate the due process rights of immigrants by quickly processing them for deportation by an airport where detainees would be held far longer than necessary. A June 2025 memorandum from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement empowered temporary holding facilities to hold immigrants for up to 72 hours, six times the previous 12-hour maximum under federal regulations. A federal judge in California has since blocked the policy.
After Oregon sued the federal government to stop the center last year, federal officials agreed in a settlement announced in October that they would provide at least 30 days of notice before beginning any environmental permitting for such a facility in the city. They also confirmed they have no current plans to build immigration detention centers in the city or Oregon.
But that agreement did not hinge on Oregon state law, with the state’s suit using federal environmental and administrative regulations requiring further notice and study of the potential site. The period for guaranteed advance notice is limited to Newport and temporary, with an expiration in August next year.
State Rep. David Gomberg, D-Otis, told the Capital Chronicle that the settlement “leaves the door wide open” for future detention centers in Oregon or Newport after the agreement expires or the federal government decides to renew its plans. He said he is still in early conversations with lawmakers about “a tool to close that door.”
“It’s early — we had an election last week. We’re gonna have another session in two months,” he said. “We’ve got a little bit of time to sort this out.”
Tung Yin, a professor of law at Portland’s Lewis & Clark Law School, responded to Kotek’s call for action with skepticism. He pointed out that multiple federal courts have blocked state laws to prevent federal immigration agents from wearing masks following legal challenges from the Trump administration.
Oregon’s law — which focuses on allowing people to sue federal, local or state law enforcement agencies to change their facial covering policies — has yet to be tested. The federal government also sued the city of Portland in mid-October over a city ordinance that aims to prevent the use of masks and require identification from law enforcement.
“While it’s understandable that Governor Kotek would want to pursue such a bill as a statement of Oregon’s commitment to sanctuary status, I don’t see any way in which this could survive a challenge by the federal government,” Yin wrote in an email. “If even a face mask ban got blocked in courts, something even more fundamental to federal or state law enforcement as detention centers would be even less likely to pass muster.”
Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lynne Terry for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.
Commented