State and local officials across the U.S. are increasingly challenging the federal government's plans to expand immigration detention facilities within their communities. This resistance occurs amidst significant federal efforts to increase detention capacity through a $45 billion expansion, financed by recent tax legislation.
Local Opposition and Legislative Initiatives
Proposed federal immigration facilities have faced notable local pushback. In Hanover County, Virginia, a public hearing for a proposed ICE facility drew hundreds of opponents, with residents citing concerns about potential unrest. Kansas City, Missouri, enacted an ordinance to impede a prospective ICE facility, while mayors in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City reported that property owners would not sell or lease properties for federal immigration detention after local concerns were raised.
Several Democratic-led state legislatures are also advancing measures to restrict or discourage ICE facilities.
New Mexico is considering legislation to ban local government agreements for ICE detention, and California is proposing a 50% tax on the profits of companies operating such facilities within the state. Similar bills are pending in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island.
Growth of Federal Detention Facilities
Federal data indicates a substantial increase in immigration detention. As of mid-January, over 75,000 immigrants were detained by ICE, up from 40,000 a year prior. The number of ICE detention facilities has more than doubled to 225 sites across 48 states and territories, largely through existing contracts and agreements with county jails.
The federal government is actively acquiring properties for large-scale detention operations. Recent purchases include warehouses in Washington County, Maryland ($102 million); Berks County, Pennsylvania ($84 million); and Surprise, Arizona (over $70 million). ICE has stated that these new facilities will adhere to established detention standards and that the expansion is necessary due to ongoing arrests.
Legal Constraints for Local Governments
State and local governments generally face limitations in prohibiting private landowners from using their property for federal immigration detention centers, as explained by Danielle Jefferis, an associate law professor.
Federal courts have previously invalidated state laws in California (2023) and New Jersey (July) that aimed to bar private immigrant detention facilities, ruling them as infringements on federal powers.
For instance, after ICE toured a site in Orlando, Florida, the city attorney advised that ICE is immune from local regulations that interfere with its federal mandate. Officials in Hanover County, Virginia, similarly noted that the federal government is largely exempt from local zoning regulations.
Evolving Local Strategies and Legal Battles
Despite legal limitations, some local entities are exploring alternative methods of resistance. Kansas City's City Council approved a five-year moratorium on non-city-run detention facilities, and a county lawmaker is proposing a broader countywide moratorium. Other municipalities, including Social Circle, Georgia; Merrillville, Indiana; El Paso, Texas; and Roxbury Township, New Jersey, have voiced concerns regarding the infrastructure capacity required to convert warehouses into detention sites.
In Leavenworth, Kansas, city officials are seeking to enforce permit requirements on private prison operator CoreCivic, which intends to reopen a facility for ICE detainees.
The efficacy of local regulations in deterring ICE facilities remains under legal scrutiny.
In New Mexico, the recently passed House legislation banning state and local government contracts for ICE facilities is now before the Senate. This measure could affect existing facilities like the Otero County Processing Center, which relies on these contracts for revenue to pay off construction debt. Otero County officials have indicated potential legal action if the bill becomes law, citing state protections for outstanding revenue bonds. Debates surrounding the legislation include concerns about job losses and economic impact versus the desire not to be complicit in perceived federal violations.