Oregon House Bill HB4150

Oregon 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/2/26
• Failed: 3/6/26

Caption

Directs state agencies to require prospective contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients to attest that they do not and will not transport individuals detained by federal agencies for the purpose of deportation, except in accordance with judicial orders.

Summary

HB 4150 would require Oregon state agencies to add immigration-related conditions to certain state contracts and grants. Before a contractor, subcontractor, or grant recipient can receive state funds, they would have to attest that they are not, and will not be, under an agreement with a federal agency to transport people detained for deportation, except when acting under a federal court order. The bill applies both at the bidding stage for contracts and as a condition of receiving grants. If a contractor’s or subcontractor’s attestation is false, or later becomes false, the state agency could void the contract and disqualify the contractor from doing business with that agency for three years. For grants, a false attestation would require repayment of grant funds to the state. The bill also requires contractors to flow the same attestation requirement down to transportation subcontractors. It declares an emergency, so it would take effect immediately upon passage.

Impact

The bill would create new statutory requirements for state procurement and grant administration by conditioning eligibility on a certification related to immigration detention transport services. It would affect state agencies, contractors, subcontractors involved in human transportation, and non-public grant recipients, and it would give agencies enforcement tools including contract voidability, a three-year disqualification period, and grant repayment obligations. The measure does not amend a specific existing statute in the text provided, but instead adds new requirements governing how state funds may be awarded and retained.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record shows the measure as a policy statement rather than a debated or amended proposal. The sponsors appear to frame it as a public-funds restriction tied to state contracting and grants, with an emergency clause suggesting urgency. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented committee sentiment to characterize beyond the bill’s clear intent to prohibit state support for entities involved in deportation transport.

Contention

The central point of contention is likely the bill’s immigration-related restriction on state contractors and grant recipients, especially whether Oregon should use public funds to bar participation by entities that transport detainees for federal deportation purposes. Supporters would likely view it as a values-based procurement safeguard, while opponents could argue it is overbroad, difficult to administer, or could limit the pool of eligible contractors and grantees. The bill also raises questions about subcontractor compliance, enforcement of false attestations, and the scope of the exception for court-ordered transport.