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

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.

Getty Images, Jon Cherry

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Warrantless Surveillance

Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)

But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person holding the U.S. flag, kneeling by a vigil.

VA hospital nurses and union members hold a memorial vigil for Alex Pretti , an ICU nurse at the VA hospital who was shot and killed by two Federal agents, February 1, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Getty Images, Andrew Lichtenstein

Should I Stay or Should I Go? When To Cut and Run On America

"If the U.S. government kills even one of our citizens for peacefully protesting, I will leave the country." Once this line was crossed, I would know that we could no longer claim to hear warning shots or catch whiffs of fascism. It will have arrived.

I said this to my therapist in November 2024 when discussing what would be the final straw for my relationship with America, the thing that would mean my family would leave this country behind.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court building.
Casey He

Blood or Soil? Why America is Turning Toward the 'Old World' Model

The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not only for its symbolism but also for what it revealed: a direct challenge to a constitutional principle that has defined American identity for more than 150 years.

The executive order, codified as Executive Order 14160 in January 2026, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or to parents on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The administration reads “subject to the jurisdiction” narrowly. It argues that the phrase requires full political allegiance and permanent domicile, conditions that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders do not meet. The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be sweeping. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli - citizenship by place of birth - that the framers of the amendment knew and endorsed.

Keep ReadingShow less