U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is spending billions on private prison contractors, such as The GEO Group and CoreCivic, to more than double its current detention capacity. But to do that, the federal government will have to overcome legal challenges from cities, states, and advocates.
Judges are weighing ecological effects, zoning laws, and the U.S. Constitution to shape whether President Donald Trump’s administration can deliver on his promise of mass deportations.
Here’s a look at some prominent cases:
In 2021, New Jersey passed a law that prevents state, local and private entities from entering into or renewing contracts for immigration detention. CoreCivic, which operated the only private detention center in the state, sued on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.
CoreCivic argued that New Jersey’s law shouldn’t apply to it because the company is effectively serving as an arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Constitution blocks state laws from regulating the federal government or its agencies.
In 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch decided partly in favor of CoreCivic. Although New Jersey could prevent state and local entities from entering into contracts with ICE, he ruled, it could not prevent CoreCivic or another private entity from doing so. Calling the law a “dagger aimed at the heart of the federal government’s immigration enforcement mission and operations,” Kirsch reasoned that allowing the full law to stand could encourage neighboring states to pass similar laws. That, he wrote, “would result in nothing short of chaos.”
A federal appeals court upheld Kirsch’s decision in July.
In late February, GEO announced ICE had awarded it a 15-year contract, worth roughly $1 billion, to reopen Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility in Newark, New Jersey. Delaney opened May 1 after months of what city officials called “irresponsible construction practices.”
In an April complaint, the city alleged Delaney Hall put detained people and staff in danger because GEO wouldn’t allow city inspectors to review the plumbing, electrical work or elevators. Newark also alleged that GEO failed to file for a certificate of continued occupancy — a form required whenever there is a change in tenant or ownership of a property. The city asked for a court order to stop Delaney’s operation while the case proceeds.
GEO called the lawsuit politically motivated and adopted a similar argument to the one CoreCivic made, saying Newark couldn’t use local codes to interfere with the federal government’s business: detaining immigrants.
Newark didn’t get the injunction it sought, so Delaney Hall remains open as the case proceeds.
City of Leavenworth v. CoreCivic
CoreCivic is seeking to reopen the shuttered Leavenworth Detention Center in Kansas under a new contract with ICE to hold up to 1,000 immigrants. The company had used the building from 1992 through 2021, primarily to hold people awaiting trial on federal charges.
The city argues the company must obtain a special use permit to operate the facility as a detention center. When the city passed a 2012 zoning law that would have required such a permit, CoreCivic was exempt because the facility already operated as a prison. But because the facility has now been idle for several years, the city maintains CoreCivic must now apply for the permit.
CoreCivic insists it doesn’t need the permit because it never abandoned the building. As it did in New Jersey, it also argues that local ordinances can’t interfere with the company when it’s doing work for the federal government.
The city’s argument won over a local judge, who issued a temporary order barring the reopening. CoreCivic has asked the judge to reconsider while the battle plays out.
Friends of the Everglades v. Noem
In late May, two environmental advocacy groups sued several federal and Florida agencies over a sprawling new immigration detention center in the Everglades. Commonly called “Alligator Alcatraz” — a term coined by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier — the facility was constructed in a matter of days on an airfield in the heart of the Big Cypress National Preserve. Made of trailers and huge tents on the tarmac, the complex is expected to be temporary but has a capacity of up to 3,000 beds, according to state officials.
The advocacy groups want the project shut down on the grounds that authorities failed to produce the required assessment of how it will affect the environment. They’re also arguing it will harm people’s ability to use the area for recreation, science and other purposes. The Miccosukee Tribe has joined the lawsuit, saying the facility negatively affects sacred sites and other protected lands.
In court filings, defendants have sought to shift responsibility onto one another. Miami-Dade County argued the state used its emergency powers to commandeer the facility and that it was powerless to fight back. The Florida Division of Emergency Management maintains it didn’t need to produce an environmental impact report because those are required only of federal agencies.
Lawyers for ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, argue the federal government can’t close the facility because it is the state’s operation.
In late August, a federal judge halted continued construction of the facility and said no additional detainees could be sent there. Additionally, officials must remove temporary fencing that prevented members of the Miccosukee Tribe from accessing the land. A separate lawsuit alleges detainees at the facility have been prevented from accessing legal counsel.
Guantanamo Bay plaintiffs v. DHS, ICE and other defendants
On Feb. 4, a plane carrying 10 immigrants landed at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in Cuba after the White House directed officials to use the base to house immigrants being deported from the U.S. The notorious military prison there — first opened in 2002 to hold terrorism suspects — had never been used for this purpose.
Represented by the ACLU and several other organizations, immigrants sent to Guantanamo Bay sued, arguing their detention outside the U.S. was illegal and a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process and their right to habeas corpus, the legal principle that protects individuals from unlawful imprisonment.
The case is pending.
In 2023, Washington state enacted new regulations and requirements for private detention centers. Those included requiring the state Health Department to adopt new rules regarding health and safety and regular inspections of such facilities.
GEO, which operated the only private detention center in the state, sued on the grounds that the law was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Among the state’s arguments was that GEO had no standing to sue because the law would only affect new or extended contracts — not those already in place.
A federal judge ruled mostly in favor of GEO but, on a technicality, left alone the section of the law that would affect new or extended contracts.
The state appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in February but hasn’t ruled.
In May, the state amended the statute to define a “private detention facility” as any operated by a private, nongovernmental entity, regardless of whether the facility is operated for profit. The new law, GEO argues, is still unconstitutional but much different in substance and scope.
This report is part of “Upheaval Across America,” an examination of immigration enforcement under the second Trump administration produced by Carnegie-Knight News21. For more stories, visit www.upheaval.news21.com.
David Scibilia/News2` is a senior at St. Bonaventure University, majoring in journalism and minoring in philosophy, law and politics. He is the managing editor of The Bona Venture, the school’s student-run newspaper. He also works as a staff writer for TAPinto Greater Olean and has interned with PolitiFact.
