ICE just told four detention centers that state law does not apply to them.
The new contract language surfaced one day after a federal judge ordered a detention facility opened to state health inspectors. The revised terms cover four facilities and state outright that state laws "shall not apply" inside them. The timing is hard to read as anything but a direct response to that court order. It swaps a legal fight over a single facility for a blanket rule written into the paperwork of future ones.
That is the real story here. A single inspection order forced ICE into court. A contract clause lets the agency try to settle the same question in advance, for every facility that signs similar terms, without another judge weighing in first. It is essentially a preemption argument (the claim that federal authority overrides state law), but instead of making it in a courtroom, ICE is making it in procurement boilerplate.
Contract language does not outrank state law just because a federal agency writes it down. Courts, not clauses, will decide whether these facilities can keep state inspectors out. Expect this fight to end up in front of a judge again, only this time over four contracts instead of one.