A Federal Judge Halts Construction of an ICE Facility Near Gilroy, California

A Federal Judge Halts Construction of an ICE Facility Near Gilroy, California
Judge Eumi K. Lee granted a preliminary injunction halting work on an ICE facility on 24.5 acres in Santa Clara County. The parties must propose its scope by September 30.

A federal court has stopped, at least for now, construction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Northern California. The ruling does not rest on immigration law but on environmental and land-use rules. That detail is precisely what makes it significant.

At Campos Law Firm, we closely monitor developments in U.S. immigration policy to protect our clients’ rights and future. Here is what is known, what is not, and what you can do.

What did the court decide?

U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee, of the Northern District of California, granted a preliminary injunction on September 11, 2026 that keeps construction paused at a 24.5-acre site at 7240 Holdsclaw Road, in an unincorporated part of Santa Clara County near Gilroy.

The lawsuit was brought by the California Attorney General and the County of Santa Clara. Their arguments, in short:

  • Skipped environmental review: the federal government allegedly moved ahead without the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including the risk of disturbing hazardous materials in the soil.
  • No coordination: state and local authorities were not consulted as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act requires.
  • Local impact: possible effects on infrastructure, on farmland protected under California’s Williamson Act, and on wastewater systems.

The order finds, at this preliminary stage, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on part of the case. The parties must file a proposal on the scope of the injunction by September 30, 2026.

What was the facility meant to be?

Here the accounts diverge, and this article leaves them as they are.

The county says the project included detainee holding rooms, processing areas and intake and custody facilities, with room for more than 100 people. The federal government has maintained it is space for about ten people on a temporary basis, and that the project is exempt from environmental review because an office building already stands on the site.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said: “No one is above the law — not even the federal government,” adding that the administration tried to rush the project “in secret.” County Counsel Tony LoPresti said the federal government “ignored the law.”

Does this mean ICE can no longer detain you in Northern California?

No — and that is worth saying plainly.

The order reaches a construction project, not ICE’s authority to arrest and not any individual case. It does not cancel removal orders, pause Immigration Court hearings, or change the requirements for asylum or adjustment of status.

It is also not a final decision: a preliminary injunction freezes the situation while the case is litigated. The government may appeal, and the exact reach of the pause is still being worked out.

What does carry practical weight is something else: less nearby detention capacity often means more transfers to distant facilities. And a transfer is not a minor administrative step. It can change which court hears the case, complicate access to your attorney and your witnesses, and affect where a habeas corpus petition must be filed. That is why the location of a detention center ends up mattering in practice.

Why could this case be repeated in other states?

Because it changes the tool. Instead of arguing immigration policy — where federal authority is broad — California and the county argued environmental procedure and land use, an area where states and counties hold real authority of their own.

If the strategy holds up, other states and local governments could follow the same route to challenge the expansion of immigration detention infrastructure. It is a different front from litigation over detention or removal, and for now it is at a very early stage.

For anyone tracking it, the date to watch is September 30, 2026, when the parties must file their proposal on the scope of the order.

Protect Your Immigration Status with Campos Law Firm

News like this is easy to misread in both directions: it neither resolves your case nor worsens it. What it does confirm is that the detention network keeps expanding, and that decisions about where and how people are held carry very concrete consequences for families.

At Campos Law Firm we explain what each development does — and does not — mean for your file, locate a detained relative, and build the defense your case calls for. We do not make unrealistic promises. We provide serious legal representation backed by preparation and integrity.

Do not leave your immigration status to chance. Call us today at +1 (844) 922-6767 to schedule a free, confidential consultation in English or Spanish. Campos Law Firm: Legal Solutions in All Areas of Law.

Share the Post:

Related Posts