Environmental Laws Slow ICE Detention Center Construction

Environmental Laws Slow ICE Detention Center Construction

Governments are increasingly using environmental review laws to slow down the construction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. This approach, often modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), involves legal challenges based on environmental impact, land-use restrictions, and local health and safety rules. A recent case in Gilroy, California, highlights how these strategies can lead to court-ordered halts in construction projects.

Legal Challenges Halt Gilroy ICE Detention Center

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in September 2026, pausing construction of an ICE detention center near Gilroy, California. The lawsuit was brought by California and Santa Clara County. They argue that ICE did not follow environmental review and land-use regulations before starting construction. This court order provides a legal pause for the project while the litigation proceeds.

The legal arguments go beyond just the facility itself. They include concerns about environmental reviews, local land-use rules, and the federal government’s failure to consult with state and county officials. This case shows a growing trend of states and local governments using environmental laws to slow down the expansion of detention facilities.

How Environmental Laws Are Used

The primary legal strategy involves using environmental review laws, similar to NEPA. This includes NEPA-style claims under state laws and local health and safety ordinances. These laws require government agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of their projects before they begin.

Sometimes, federal law can override local zoning rules. However, challengers argue that even federal projects must follow generally applicable environmental analysis requirements or local compliance rules, especially when a property’s use is changing. Plaintiffs argue that these reviews must happen before construction or occupancy begins. This applies when the government plans a new facility or converts an existing one for detention use.

California’s Legal Strategy Against the Gilroy Project

The lawsuit against the Gilroy detention center combines several types of claims. California and Santa Clara County assert that ICE violated environmental laws and local land-use rules. They point to issues with the property’s existing conditions, such as septic systems and hazardous materials. Plaintiffs argue these conditions might make detention use unlawful without further review.

Additionally, the challengers cite the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. This act involves agricultural or conservation agreements that can create another obstacle if protected land is proposed for detention use. State and county officials also claim that ICE did not consult with them before moving forward with the project.

Arizona’s Experience with Environmental Review

In Arizona, the Attorney General sued over a proposed ICE facility in Surprise. The challenge was based on NEPA, seeking environmental review before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could house detainees there. DHS stated that the review process is ongoing, and the project remains paused during this time. Arizona’s approach demonstrates how state environmental procedures can be effective, even when federal ownership might limit direct local zoning control. The focus of this dispute is on the review process before the facility is occupied.

Other Jurisdictions Test Different Restrictions

Various other jurisdictions are exploring different legal and administrative pressures to slow detention projects.

• Maryland: Opponents have raised concerns about alleged skipped environmental reviews for a new detention center project.
• New Jersey: Lawsuits focused on environmental reviews are being used in cases involving the conversion of warehouses into detention facilities.
• Colorado: A city filed a lawsuit against the landlord of an ICE processing facility, arguing that detentions violate local zoning codes.
• Napa County, California: Officials are considering specific zoning restrictions for detention facilities, potentially including a moratorium.
• Salt Lake City, Utah: Opposition and litigation over environmental reviews led ICE to abandon a plan to convert a warehouse into a detention facility.

These cases share a common theme: challenging the use of a facility and the timing of government actions. State and local plaintiffs are seeking reviews when properties are converted, expanded, or used for detention. This is instead of solely trying to prohibit federal operations outright. The Gilroy injunction represents the most significant court-ordered pause among recent disputes. Other projects are still undergoing environmental review, or facing challenges based on zoning codes and conservation rules.

Frequently Asked Questions