Kotek made the call at a Friday press conference, responding to a question about what state leaders can do to support Oregonians amid the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement tactics, which have included warrantless arrests and federal agents shooting people during operations. Research from immigrant rights advocates has found that counties hosting detention centers tend to see more 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."

The governor's office declined to provide further details Tuesday about the specific legislation she envisions. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said the agency has no new facilities to announce "at this time" and asserted that the Constitution's supremacy clause "makes it clear that sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement."

Oregon is already among a handful of states without a large-scale, overnight immigration detention facility for the federal government. The state hosts processing facilities in cities like Portland where detainees are held temporarily before being released or transferred to long-term detention in Tacoma, Washington. For decades, state law has barred local and state governments from participating in immigration enforcement without a court order.

A 2021 state law already prohibits private immigration detention centers in Oregon. Any new legislation could attempt to expand that ban by changing how state-run services such as utilities or permits are granted for such projects. But federal courts have struck down similar laws in New Jersey and California in recent years.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that a California law banning private immigration detention centers was unconstitutional, finding it violated the supremacy clause by impeding federal operations. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a New Jersey law in 2025 that barred private prison companies from contracting with federal immigration authorities to operate detention 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."

The push for a ban 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 immigration processing or holding facility. Critics saw the move as an attempt to violate immigrants' due process rights by processing them for deportation at an airport where they could be held far longer than necessary.

A June 2025 memorandum from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement allowed temporary holding facilities to detain immigrants for up to 72 hours, six times the previous 12-hour maximum under federal regulations. A federal judge in California has since blocked that policy.

After Oregon sued the federal government to stop the Newport center last year, federal officials agreed in a settlement announced in October to provide at least 30 days' notice before beginning any environmental permitting for such a facility. They also confirmed they have no current plans to build immigration detention centers in Newport or elsewhere in Oregon.

But that agreement was not based on state law. Oregon's lawsuit relied on federal environmental and administrative regulations requiring further notice and study of the potential site. The guaranteed advance notice period is limited to Newport and temporary, expiring 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 if the federal government renews its plans. He said he is 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 at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, expressed skepticism about Kotek's proposal. He noted that multiple federal courts have blocked state laws aimed at preventing federal immigration agents from wearing masks after legal challenges from the Trump administration. Oregon's law on the issue, which allows people to sue law enforcement agencies to change facial covering policies, has yet to be tested. The federal government also sued Portland in mid-October over a city ordinance that seeks 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."