Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

News

Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

U.S. Customs Protection officer

Photo provided by MILN

Michigan officials and the city of Romulus have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a growing legal and political battle over plans to convert a local warehouse into an immigration detention center near Detroit.

The lawsuit, led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and joined by the city, seeks to halt the federal government’s effort to repurpose a commercial warehouse in Romulus into a large-scale detention site operated by ICE.


The legal challenge marks one of the state’s strongest responses yet to the proposed project and comes amid mounting concerns from local leaders and residents about how the facility was approved and what impact it could have on the surrounding community. The proposed detention center would be located near one middle school, one elementary school and a residential neighborhood.

According to the Michigan Department of Attorney General, the lawsuit argues that federal officials failed to properly consult with state and local authorities before moving forward with the plan. It also raises concerns that the project did not undergo required environmental review processes and may violate federal law governing land use and infrastructure planning.

“Two words I hate to use when describing my home city are ‘overburdened and underserved’. Unfortunately, we are exactly that. We are not asking for a handout, just the chance to grow and improve the quality of life for our residents, unburdened by outside interference,” said City of Romulus Mayor Robert McCraight in a press release. “This is why any type of detention center must be vetted through all required permitting and legal channels.”

The proposed detention center would be located in an existing warehouse near Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Reporting from Michigan Public and Michigan Advance highlights that the facility has sparked significant backlash at both the local and state level. Romulus officials have said they were not adequately informed about the project in advance, while residents and advocacy groups have raised concerns about transparency and community impact.

“As the state’s Attorney General, I have a legal and moral obligation to act if and when this administration behaves unlawfully and does so in a way that harms Michigan residents,” said Attorney General Nessel in a press release.

“The Romulus Warehouse is simply not—and never will be—an appropriate place for a large-scale detention center. DHS in its zealous quest for a bigger nationwide footprint, appears to have conducted an ill-conceived rush job, free from any traditional planning considerations or even basic concern for the many Romulus residents who will be impacted by their actions,” Nessel continued.

City leaders have already taken formal steps to oppose the plan. Earlier this year, the Romulus City Council unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the establishment of an ICE detention center within city limits, reflecting widespread local resistance.

Additional coverage from CBS News Detroit and The Detroit News notes that the state is now seeking court intervention to block construction or conversion of the facility while the case moves forward.

At the center of the dispute is a broader question about federal authority and local control.

The Romulus proposal is also part of a wider national trend, as federal agencies look to expand detention infrastructure by purchasing and converting existing properties, including warehouses near major transportation hubs.

State officials say the lawsuit is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, while opponents of the detention center continue to organize at the local level. Federal agencies, meanwhile, have maintained that such facilities are needed to support immigration enforcement operations.

While opposition to the detention center has been widespread, demonstrations in Romulus have also drawn counter-protesters supporting immigration enforcement efforts.

Fox 2 reported that during a February protest outside City Hall, individuals in favor of the facility clashed with anti-ICE demonstrators as city officials prepared to meet on the proposal, reflecting divisions within the community over the project and broader immigration policy.

For now, the project remains in limbo as the legal process unfolds.

Angeles Ponpa is the Managing Editor of Latino News Network Midwest, overseeing Illinois Latino News, Wisconsin Latino News, and Michigan Latino News. She is based in Illinois.

Michigan, Romulus challenge federal plan for ICE detention center in ongoing legal fight was first published on Michigan Latino News and was republished with permission.


Read More

A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be the beneficiary of a particularly lenient grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor had failed to obtain an indictment against him.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from their home in England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting had occurred. Although the evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury heard the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. He related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch standing in front of a crowd.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, in Miami, Fla., on May 20, 2026.

US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba

The Trump administration on May 20, 2026, indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for murder, based on the downing of two planes near the Cuban coastline in 1996 that killed four people.

As a historian of Latin America and U.S. foreign policy, I believe the indictment may be the prelude to direct U.S. military action against Cuba.

Keep ReadingShow less