- Judge Eumi K. Lee issued a preliminary injunction, pausing construction of the Gilroy ICE detention center.
- California and Santa Clara County argue ICE ignored environmental and land-use rules before moving forward.
- State and local challengers are using NEPA-style lawsuits, zoning claims, and health ordinances to slow detention projects.
Judge Eumi K. Lee paused construction of an ICE detention center near Gilroy, California, on September 12, 2026, issuing a preliminary injunction while the litigation continues. The order gave state and local challengers a court-backed halt to work on the project.
California and Santa Clara County brought the challenge against ICE. Their claims reach beyond the facility itself, including environmental review, land-use restrictions, and the federal government’s failure to consult state and county leaders.
The case illustrates how governments are deploying environmental review laws to slow detention expansion. The most prominent theories rely on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, along with NEPA-style claims under state procedures and local health/safety ordinances.
The legal strategy responds to a federal obstacle. The Supremacy Clause can limit ordinary city and county zoning authority over federal property, so challengers often argue that generally applicable rules still require environmental analysis, local compliance, or review of a changed property use.
Projects can face delay before detainees arrive. Plaintiffs argue that review must come before construction or occupancy when the government is planning a new facility or converting an existing one.
California is using several legal theories against the Gilroy project
The Gilroy litigation combines several kinds of allegations. The state and Santa Clara County say ICE violated environmental laws and local land-use restrictions while moving forward with the detention project.
The property’s existing conditions form part of the dispute. Court arguments have focused on septic infrastructure, hazardous materials, and land-use conditions that plaintiffs say may make detention use unlawful or unsupported without additional review.
The challengers also point to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. Agricultural or conservation agreements tied to tax benefits or preservation can create another barrier when officials seek to use protected property for detention purposes.
The case reaches beyond local permission. State and county officials also allege that ICE failed to consult with them before proceeding.
Arizona has kept the Surprise facility paused during environmental review
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sued over a proposed ICE facility in Surprise. Her challenge relies on NEPA and seeks environmental review before DHS houses detainees there.
DHS said the review remains underway. The project remains paused as that process continues.
Arizona’s approach shows how state environmental procedures can provide leverage even when federal ownership weakens direct local zoning control. The dispute is focused on the review process before occupancy, rather than only on whether a city can prohibit federal detention outright.
Other jurisdictions are testing zoning, conversion, and facility-specific restrictions
| Jurisdiction | Legal or administrative pressure | Project status or focus |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland | Alleged skipped environmental reviews | Opposition to a new detention center project |
| New Jersey | Environmental-review lawsuits | Warehouse-to-detention conversions |
| Colorado | Local zoning-code lawsuit against the landlord | Detentions at an ICE processing facility |
| Napa County, California | Possible detention-facility-specific zoning restrictions | Siting, construction, conversion, or operation of new or expanded detention or correctional facilities |
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Opposition and litigation over environmental reviews | ICE abandoned its warehouse-to-detention plan |
Maryland and New Jersey opponents have centered their challenges on environmental review, although the disputes involve different kinds of projects. Maryland opposition concerns a new detention center, while New Jersey litigation targets warehouse conversions.
A Colorado city has taken a different route by suing the landlord of an ICE processing facility. The city argues that detentions violate local zoning codes.
Napa County is considering a more direct local response. Officials are exploring a moratorium or similar zoning ordinance aimed at restricting new or expanded detention and correctional facilities in unincorporated areas.
Salt Lake City offers an example of a project ending before construction. ICE abandoned the warehouse-to-detention plan after opposition and litigation over environmental reviews.
The common thread is the facility’s use and the timing of government action. State and local plaintiffs are seeking review when a property is converted, expanded, or placed into detention service, rather than relying only on a direct prohibition against federal operations.
The Gilroy injunction is now the clearest court-ordered pause among the major 2026 disputes. The Surprise project remains in an environmental-review process, while other jurisdictions are testing zoning codes, conservation restrictions, and proposed moratoria.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
