A federal judge appeared skeptical Tuesday of the government’s argument that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility proposed near Gilroy would not significantly change the property’s use, but postponed until next week a ruling on whether to halt construction.
“Tell me how a change from agricultural research to immigrant detention is not a change in use?” U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee asked during the hearing. “In my experience, an office versus a holding center are very different things.”
RELATED: Contra Costa County adopts anti-ICE policy
Following the arguments, Lee said she would issue her ruling next Tuesday. She ordered that no activity take place at the site in the meantime.
Santa Clara County’s lead attorney said the hearing left him encouraged about the county’s chances of prevailing.
“Even though we don’t have a final ruling yet from the court, the signs that we heard today in the hearing are incredibly encouraging,” said Tony LoPresti, county counsel for Santa Clara. “It is the wrong place for this facility. This should have never been proposed here, and it should certainly not proceed here.”
On Friday, Lee issued a tentative ruling indicating that she was inclined to halt work on the facility while a lawsuit brought by state and county authorities proceeds. Lee said California and Santa Clara County were likely to succeed on their claim that the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act.
California and Santa Clara County sued ICE in U.S. District Court in San Jose on June 10, claiming federal officials skirted environmental laws, ignored local land-use restrictions and failed to consult with state or county leaders before moving ahead. The state and county are seeking a court order permanently shutting down the project.
Two weeks later, they asked the court for a preliminary injunction halting work until the lawsuit is resolved.
An eventual finding that the facility violates federal environmental law would not necessarily mean the court would permanently shut down the project as the state and county have requested, LoPresti said.
Read more This Milpitas flag football star is small in stature, but a giant on field
ICE said in a court filing last month that the facility just east of Highway 101 could hold about 10 detainees at a time but acknowledged the number could be higher. The agency disputed claims by local officials that it could be used to detain up to 150 people.
Tuesday’s arguments centered largely on whether the project was subject to federal environmental review.
Lawyers for the county argued that construction would threaten to release hazardous materials from the property’s previous owner, an agricultural research firm. They also said the facility’s operations would overload its septic system. Those factors could put nearby communities and wildlife at risk, according to Santa Clara County Deputy County Counsel Rajiv Narayan.
“There are very serious likely harms afoot,” he said.
Federal attorneys disputed those claims, arguing that the county already knew hazardous materials might be present at the site and that the expected increase in occupancy was not significant.
Stacey Bosshardt, an attorney representing landowner ECG 6 LLC, called the county’s claims “contrived” and “a stalking horse for their real objection: the (Trump) administration’s immigration policy.”
Attorneys opposing the injunction also argued that the project was exempt from federal environmental review because it did not represent a significant change in the property’s use.
Before the hearing, dozens of community members, faith leaders and public officials rallied against the proposed facility, carrying signs calling for “ICE Out” of Gilroy.
“We are a community that will not allow our neighbors … to be turned into targets of surveillance, detention or fear,” said Santa Clara County Supervisor Sylvia Arenas, whose district includes Gilroy. “We will defend our home … Together we can and will protect our community.”
Read more NFL kickoff: Fearless forecasts for 2026
About the Author
