California could become the first state in the nation to ban both privately run prisons and immigration detention centers that are currently jailing thousands of people.
Gov. Newsom has until Oct. 13 to sign or veto a bill that was overwhelmingly approved by the state Legislature earlier in September.
AB 32, by Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), would prohibit the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from entering or renewing contracts after Jan. 1, 2020, with for-profit companies to run prisons.
The bill would also bar private corporations from operating detention facilities after their current contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expire.
“AB 32 would be the nation’s most comprehensive ban on the use of for-profit detention in the civil and criminal context,” said Jackie Gonzalez, policy director at the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which pushed for the measure. “This bill is to say that as a state, our values are to prioritize people over profits.”
Supporters of the bill argue that for-profit companies have an economic incentive to lock up more people, while critics counter that the legislation would eliminate options to reduce overcrowding and protect public safety.
While AB 32 initially targeted for-profit prisons only, a late amendment expanded the measure to include civil detention, including for immigration offenses.
Newsom has not publicly disclosed whether he intends to sign the legislation, but during his inaugural address he promised to “end the outrage of private prisons once and for all.”
If enacted into law, the bill would impact four immigrant detention facilities in Southern California that can jail up to 4,700 people. The companies running those facilities — the Geo Group, CoreCivic and Management & Training Corporation — have contracts with ICE that expire in 2020 or 2023.
The legislation comes as ICE is locking up thousands more people than in prior years. In August, the agency reported an all-time high of more than 55,000 detainees nationwide on any given day. By mid-September, the number of immigrants in custody dropped to about 52,000, but that figure still represents a 15% jump from June 2018.
Earlier this year, the agency said it intends to double its detention capacity in the state. ICE solicited proposals in April for new facilities to hold up to 5,600 people across California.
Because state law already prohibits local governments from entering or expanding contracts directly with ICE, only the federal government could step in and take over operation of the four privately run detention centers in California. Another scenario would be the closure of the immigrant facilities: Adelanto, in the San Bernardino County town of Adelanto; Imperial Regional, in Calexico; Mesa Verde, in Bakersfield; and Otay Mesa, near San Diego.
Gonzalez said AB 32 could lead ICE to release more immigrants, such as those without serious criminal records — something the agency has the discretion to do.
“My hope would be that there would be fewer people detained to begin with because ICE will recognize that those individuals should not be detained in the first place,” she said.
But David Jennings, who directs ICE’s enforcement and removal operations in Northern California, said AB 32 would force the agency to transfer detainees out of state, sending them farther away from any relatives in California.
“Look, there's a whole bunch of people that by law have to be detained, and so they'll be detained, whether it's here or somewhere else,” said Jennings.
Some legal scholars doubt California has the authority to restrict the way ICE operates detention facilities.
John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, said AB 32 would be “blatantly” unconstitutional if enacted.
“What if the federal government decides to house detainees at the Hilton. Is the Hilton now illegal?” said Eastman. “California cannot thwart federal enforcement efforts in areas so clearly within the authority of the federal government as immigration is.”
Currently, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has contracts that expire in 2023 for four private prisons that can hold up to 2,400 inmates, according to Bonta’s office.
But in one of the bill's exemptions, CDCR could renew or extend contracts with for-profit prisons “if needed to comply with court-ordered population caps.” CDCR said it doesn't comment on pending legislation.
Four states have banned the use of private correctional facilities: Illinois, Iowa, New York and, most recently, Nevada. Illinois has also taken some steps to restrict immigration detention, but not to the extent that AB 32 and previous laws do in California.
A spokesman for CoreCivic, which runs the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County and other facilities that contract with CDCR, called the bill “misguided.”
Issa Arnita, a spokesman with Management & Training Corp., said 550 employees at its Imperial Regional Detention Center and other facilities in California could be affected.
“We are currently reviewing the law and its possible effects on our facilities,” said Arnita. “We provide a valuable service to our customers and a safe and humane environment for those in our care.”
The Geo Group, the nation’s second-largest for-profit prison operator, runs California’s biggest immigrant detention center in Adelanto, and the smaller Mesa Verde facility in Bakersfield. The company did not return requests for comment.
Government watchdogs and immigrant advocates have repeatedly pointed to serious violations of ICE’s own detention standards at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, including inadequate medical care.
To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.