Why It Matters
Congress has directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary to arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently uses more than 200 detention facilities, with the vast majority operated by private companies under contracts, state or local governments under intergovernmental service agreements, or occasionally the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Recent legislation pumped over $75 billion into detention expansion.
The Big Picture
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, published July 29, maps the legal authorities that let DHS house detained immigrants and the growing friction between federal detention ambitions and state and local resistance.
Statutorily, DHS has sweeping discretion. Federal law directs the Secretary to arrange for appropriate places of detention for individuals pending removal, permitting federally owned facilities, private contracts, agreements with state and local governments, or use of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In practice, only a small number of ICE detention facilities are federally owned and operated service processing centers, with most run through the private and intergovernmental arrangements described above.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted July 4, 2025, provided over $75 billion in supplemental ICE funding for detention expansion and authorized DHS to set minimal detention standards without standard rulemaking. But DHS' federal authority has met repeated resistance by states.
Courts have split on whether states can block detention operations within their borders. California's ban on private detention was struck down in 2022 when the Ninth Circuit found it gave the state virtual power of review over ICE contracting. New Jersey's ban on immigration detention agreements fell in 2025 when the Third Circuit ruled it prevented the federal government from carrying out a core federal function. Illinois, by contrast, succeeded in keeping a law prohibiting state and local officials from contracting with DHS, since it only regulated state actors, not the federal government. Washington's health and safety inspection requirements for private detention facilities survived legal challenge in 2025 because they did not prohibit operations. In a companion case, the Ninth Circuit also upheld Washington's minimum wage law as applied to a private detention facility, finding it fell within the state's traditional police powers.
State and local challenges to specific facility conversions have produced mixed results. A Florida detention facility built under a cooperative agreement, known as "Alligator Alcatraz," was initially blocked by a district court for NEPA violations. But the 11th Circuit vacated the injunction in 2026, finding the construction was primarily a state action not triggering federal NEPA obligations. The facility has since closed, with its tents, signage, and generators removed from the site.
A Maryland federal court blocked DHS's conversion of a warehouse into a detention facility, finding DHS's use of categorical exclusions under NEPA was arbitrary and capricious. In Michigan, DHS announced in June 2026 that it no longer intends to proceed with converting a Romulus warehouse into a 500-person detention facility after a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking modifications and finding DHS's environmental review insufficient.
The legal landscape also reflects tension over what counts as an "appropriate place" for detention. Michigan's attorney general and the City of Romulus alleged the warehouse violated federal law as inappropriate because it was located near elementary and middle schools, in a residential area, and within a floodplain. They also argued DHS ignored state and local viewpoints as required by federal procurement law and failed to conduct adequate environmental review.
What's Next
ICE now plans to sell or hand off seven of the 11 warehouses it spent roughly $1 billion acquiring for detention use, including sites in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Utah in addition to Romulus, reversing a signature initiative of the prior DHS leadership. The agency is still moving forward at sites in Texas and Arizona.
Conditions at existing facilities remain a flashpoint. Substandard conditions have been reported at multiple ICE detention facilities according to sources including CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, and PBS NewsHour. Yet ICE's fiscal year 2027 budget report claims every facility subject to an annual inspection complied with the agency's detention standards. And the New York Times reported on August 3 that a detainee died while in custody at Delaney Hall in Newark. N.J.
The patchwork of state laws and court decisions means DHS cannot assume it can convert property or expand capacity anywhere it chooses. The report documents that federal law already grants DHS substantial discretion to find detention locations, but courts are reading that discretion against DHS when environmental review or state viewpoints are ignored. Legislation has been proposed to prohibit DHS from limiting or requiring prior notice for congressional visits to detention facilities, signaling congressional interest in oversight. There have been instances when lawmakers have been denied access to some of DHS' detention sites.
The Bottom Line
The detention expansion authorized by last year's legislation is running into a legal and political wall, and DHS is now retreating on part of it voluntarily. The agency has the statutory authority to find and use detention space, but that authority is not unlimited, and it's proving costly to exercise. Courts are enforcing requirements that DHS consider state and local viewpoints, conduct genuine environmental review, and identify genuinely appropriate locations. States that cannot ban detention outright can still impose health and safety regulations and minimum wage requirements on private detention contractors. The result is a system where DHS has money and legal authority but is scaling back its most ambitious expansion plans in the face of legal and local resistance.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article