On July 22, 2025, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major decision that blocks New Jersey’s attempt to ban private contracts for immigrant detention. The court sided with CoreCivic, a leading private prison company, allowing it to keep running the Elizabeth Detention Center near Newark Liberty International Airport. This ruling has immediate effects for immigrants, state officials, and the federal government, and it raises important questions about who controls immigration enforcement in the United States 🇺🇸.
What Happened and Why It Matters
The court’s 2-1 decision means CoreCivic can continue operating its 300-bed facility in New Jersey, holding immigrants who are waiting for deportation under a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The judges found that New Jersey’s 2021 law, which tried to stop new or renewed contracts for immigrant detention centers, goes against the U.S. Constitution. The court said the law interferes with federal immigration enforcement, which is the job of the federal government, not the states.
Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, who wrote the majority opinion, explained, “Just as the federal government cannot control a state, so too a state cannot control the federal government.” Judge Cheryl Ann Krause agreed with this view. However, Judge Thomas Ambro disagreed, saying the law only affects state and local governments and private companies, not the federal government itself.
Immediate Impact on CoreCivic and New Jersey
The ruling is a win for CoreCivic, which has managed the Elizabeth Detention Center for decades. Ryan Gustin, a spokesman for CoreCivic, said the company “has played a limited but important role” in U.S. immigration enforcement for over 40 years. He welcomed the court’s decision, saying it confirms the federal government’s right to use private detention when needed.
For New Jersey, the decision is a setback. Attorney General Matthew Platkin criticized the ruling, warning that private detention centers pose “grave risks to health and safety.” He said his office is reviewing the decision and considering what to do next, which could include asking for a rehearing or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Voices from the Community and Advocacy Groups
The New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, a leading advocacy group, strongly condemned the court’s decision. Executive Director Amy Torres said the ruling puts “corporate profits over democratic process and public safety.” Many immigrant rights groups argue that private detention centers, like those run by CoreCivic, have a history of poor conditions and abuse. They believe the state should have the power to protect detainees and limit the role of private companies in immigration enforcement.
On the other hand, both the Trump and Biden administrations have supported CoreCivic’s position. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that the federal government needs private detention centers to handle changes in the number of immigrants being detained. This support from both Republican and Democratic administrations shows how important private detention is to federal immigration policy.
Background: How Did We Get Here?
New Jersey passed a law in 2021, known as AB 5207, to stop new or renewed contracts for private immigrant detention centers. The law directly threatened CoreCivic’s contract for the Elizabeth facility. In response, CoreCivic sued the state, claiming the law interfered with federal immigration enforcement. The U.S. government supported CoreCivic, saying the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law is the highest law of the land.
A district court agreed with CoreCivic in August 2023, blocking New Jersey from enforcing the law against the company. The state appealed to the 3rd Circuit, and oral arguments took place on May 1, 2025. Many organizations, including the ACLU of New Jersey and 27 others, filed briefs supporting the state’s position.
Legal Reasoning and the Supremacy Clause
The main legal issue in this case is federal preemption, which means federal law overrides state law when the two conflict. The court found that New Jersey’s law tried to control how the federal government enforces immigration, which is not allowed. The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the final say in immigration matters.
Judge Bibas wrote that just as the federal government cannot force a state to act, a state cannot block the federal government from carrying out its duties. This means states cannot stop the federal government from using private companies like CoreCivic to detain immigrants.
Judge Ambro, in his dissent, argued that the law only affects private companies and state and local governments, not the federal government directly. He believed the state should have the right to decide what kinds of contracts are allowed within its borders.
What This Means for Immigrants and Their Families
For immigrants held at the Elizabeth Detention Center, the ruling means the facility will stay open under CoreCivic’s management. Many detainees and their families worry about conditions in private detention centers. Advocacy groups have reported problems such as poor medical care, lack of access to legal help, and unsafe living conditions.
The decision also affects immigrants across the United States 🇺🇸. It sends a message that states have limited power to control how the federal government handles immigration enforcement, even if they have concerns about private detention.
Broader Impact: Other States and National Policy
This ruling is not just about New Jersey. It follows a similar decision in 2022, when a court blocked California’s attempt to ban private immigrant detention centers. However, a different appeals court upheld an Illinois law that only restricted state and local government contracts, not private companies. This shows there is still debate about how much power states have in this area.
Legal scholars say the 3rd Circuit’s decision is a strong statement in favor of federal authority over immigration. It could set a precedent for other states that want to limit or ban private detention centers. As reported by VisaVerge.com, this case highlights the ongoing struggle between state governments and the federal government over immigration policy.
Federal Preemption and Its Limits
The idea of federal preemption is central to this case. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to make and enforce immigration laws. When state laws conflict with federal policy, federal law wins. This principle is meant to create a uniform immigration system across the country.
However, states often try to pass laws to protect their residents or address local concerns. In the case of New Jersey, lawmakers wanted to end private immigrant detention because of worries about safety and human rights. The court’s decision limits what states can do in this area, especially when it comes to private companies working with the federal government.
Practical Effects for CoreCivic and ICE
For CoreCivic, the ruling means business as usual. The company can keep its contract with ICE and continue running the Elizabeth Detention Center. ICE relies on private operators like CoreCivic to manage the large number of immigrants in detention, especially during times when the number of detainees goes up quickly.
This decision also affects other private prison companies and the federal government’s ability to respond to changes in immigration patterns. If states cannot block private detention contracts, the federal government has more flexibility to manage its immigration system.
What Are the Next Steps for New Jersey?
New Jersey officials are not giving up. Attorney General Platkin said his office is reviewing the court’s decision and considering further legal action. The state could ask the full 3rd Circuit to rehear the case (called an “en banc” review) or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, until another court says otherwise, CoreCivic can keep operating in New Jersey.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups may also look for new ways to address concerns about private detention. This could include pushing for federal legislation, increasing oversight of detention centers, or finding other ways to protect detainees’ rights.
Community Reactions and Ongoing Concerns
Many people in New Jersey and across the country are worried about the continued use of private detention centers. Immigrant rights groups say these facilities often put profit ahead of people’s well-being. They point to reports of poor food, lack of medical care, and limited access to lawyers.
Supporters of private detention argue that companies like CoreCivic provide needed space and resources for the federal government. They say private facilities are essential for handling sudden increases in the number of immigrants being detained.
Possible Solutions and Future Policy Directions
While the court’s decision limits what states can do, there are still ways to address concerns about immigrant detention:
- Federal Legislation: Congress could pass laws to set national standards for detention centers or limit the use of private companies.
- Oversight and Transparency: State and federal officials can increase inspections and require more reporting from private operators.
- Community Support: Local organizations can offer legal help, health care, and other services to detainees and their families.
- Public Awareness: Advocacy groups can continue to raise awareness about conditions in detention centers and push for change at the national level.
Key Takeaways for Immigrants, Families, and Advocates
- CoreCivic can keep running the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey under its contract with ICE.
- New Jersey’s law banning new or renewed contracts for private immigrant detention centers is blocked by the court.
- The ruling reinforces federal control over immigration enforcement, limiting states’ power to restrict private detention.
- Advocacy groups and state officials are exploring new ways to protect detainees and improve conditions.
Where to Find More Information
For those seeking official updates or wanting to read the court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides case documents and rulings on its official website. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office also shares statements and news about ongoing legal actions. CoreCivic posts press releases and updates on its own site, while advocacy groups like the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice offer policy positions and community resources.
Conclusion: What This Means Going Forward
The 3rd Circuit’s decision is a turning point in the debate over private immigrant detention in New Jersey and possibly beyond. It shows the strong power of the federal government in immigration matters and the limits of state action. For immigrants, families, and advocates, the fight for better conditions and more humane treatment continues, even as legal battles shape the future of detention policy.
As the situation develops, it’s important for affected communities to stay informed, seek legal support when needed, and work together to push for positive change. The story of CoreCivic, New Jersey, and immigrant detention is far from over, and its outcome will have lasting effects on immigration enforcement and the lives of many people across the United States 🇺🇸.
Learn Today
CoreCivic → A leading private prison company managing immigrant detention centers under federal contracts.
Supremacy Clause → Constitutional provision establishing federal law as supreme over conflicting state laws.
Federal Preemption → Legal principle where federal law overrides state law in conflicting areas like immigration.
ICE → U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency enforcing immigration laws and detentions.
En Banc → A legal procedure where a full appellate court rehears a case rather than a panel.
This Article in a Nutshell
A July 2025 appeals court ruled New Jersey cannot ban private immigrant detention contracts. CoreCivic keeps running the Elizabeth Detention Center, affirming federal supremacy over state laws in immigration enforcement, impacting immigrants, officials, and advocates nationwide amid ongoing legal and policy debates over private detention facilities.
— By VisaVerge.com
