New details on legal battle over proposed Gilroy ICE facility

Santa Clara County released new details Monday on its next steps in the legal battle over a proposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility outside of Gilroy following a ruling by a federal judge ordering a halt to construction at the facility.

Following the ruling, the county and the state have until Sept. 30 to meet with representatives from ICE and the landowners of the site regarding the scope of the injunction, said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti at a press conference Monday. LoPresti said he expects that the final details will prevent construction or demolition at the site, but could allow testing in compliance to federal environmental law. Regardless of whether the state, county and federal government can come to an agreement on the details, the federal judge would have the final say on approving the terms of the injunction.

“The court’s ruling is clear, and it’s unmistakable – the government failed to follow the National Environmental Policy Act. Real environmental review would have laid bare the cold, hard facts that this is the wrong place for this project,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Toni LoPresti at a press conference on Monday over the judge’s recent ruling, criticizing the federal government’s “half-baked attempts to justify the project.”

“The evidence presented shows that the federal government didn’t think this through at all,” he said.

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. The injunction focused primarily on the alleged violation of the National Environmental Protection Act – which requires an assessment of the environmental impact of a construction project before development.

ICE did not immediately respond to an inquiry by this news organization regarding the ruling. In arguments last week, lawyers for the federal government and the landowners of the site disputed county claims that the construction would harm the environment, characterizing the suit as politically motivated rather than based on environmental issues.

Late this Friday, Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California sided with the county and state Attorney General’s office by issuing a preliminary injunction against the planned detention center. She found that the federal government failed to conduct “meaningful environmental analysis” and added that construction and demolition work on-site “increases the risk of releasing hazardous materials into the environment,” according to evidence submitted to the court.

Reporting by this news organization revealed that work had begun at the facility in May. Then in July, the county and ICE reached an agreement to pause work until this month. The most recent ruling pauses work on the project until the lawsuit is resolved.

“This is an amazing win by the attorney general and our amazing Santa Clara County Counsel team. It’s a powerful win for our community,” said Rebeca Armendariz, Chair of the ICE Out of Gilroy coalition, which has protested and lobbied against the planned ICE facility for months. “Our collective action ensured that Homeland Security could not operate in the shadows … This order gives us more time to organize, mobilize in a way that builds up the foundation of community power that will shut this down for good.”

Despite the victory, county officials and community leaders all noted that the fight against the facility was not over. In theory, the federal government could seek to comply with federal environmental review law to move the project forward. Even so, LoPresti noted that the county and state had sued the federal government using multiple other laws unrelated to environmental review and would continue to fight the development regardless.

“It’s our view that the federal government should cut its losses and walk away from this project,” said LoPresti. “But if they don’t, we are ready, willing, and able to continue pressing this case in court, and we’re confident that we’ll continue to prevail.”