Judge extends temporary halt on construction of proposed ICE facility near Gilroy

By John Ramos

On Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by the state and Santa Clara County against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, involving the proposed immigration enforcement facility near Gilroy.

“Today, the fight brings us to this courthouse, the people’s house, where we are urging the judge to hold the federal government accountable to the law!” County Supervisor Betty Duong told a cheering crowd. “Santa Clara County is fighting today so that other Bay Area counties don’t have to fight tomorrow!”

They met outside the Federal District Courthouse in San Jose, where Judge Eumi Lee would hear arguments in the case. But outside, the arguments were more emotional than legal. A group of protestors with Japanese ancestry compared ICE detention sites to the internment camps of the 1940s.

“We make that very strong connection,” said Susan Hayase with the San Jose Nikkei Resisters. “We think that what’s happening now is what happened during World War II to our people. So, we are very disgusted. We wanted our country to learn the lesson that you don’t punish a large group of people without due process, individual due process. We think it’s totally unfair and unjust and illegal.”

After the rally ended, they filed into the courthouse where Lee asked questions and heard the positions of both sides. The county is suing ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for allegedly committing various procedural and environmental violations. They say the new facility is being built with a capacity of 120 people based on the size of the septic system, and they believe there may be hazardous materials that need to be removed. They said they don’t know for sure because they have not been allowed onto the property to inspect it.

“They made a $27 million investment in a piece of property that wasn’t properly analyzed and in no way, shape or form should be utilized for this purpose,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti.

But lawyers for the federal government denied the allegations and referred to it as a “holding facility,” not a detention facility, for 10 people for a maximum of 12 hours. They said the site will primarily be new offices for ICE operations, as they close the current offices in Morgan Hill.  

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security wrote: “Is it really news that when a federal agency hires more personnel that they need more space? Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we have an additional 12,000 ICE officers and agents on the ground across the country. That’s a 120% increase in our workforce.” An attorney told the judge that not having a facility in the area impedes their operations, making them less efficient.

And that is exactly what the protestors said they are worried about: that ICE will increase its efforts in the Bay Area once it has a new facility to operate from.

“It will absolutely be easier for ICE to ramp up their enforcement operations in the whole Bay Area if this facility gets opened,” said protest organizer Rebeca Armendariz. “Because they’re working on opening Dublin as a detention center.  If they open Gilroy, it’ll be a processing center. So, those two work hand-in-hand.”

Lee, who last week issued a tentative stay on construction, seemed skeptical about the difference between a holding facility and a detention site. As the hearing ended, she ordered the temporary stay to continue for another week while she considers a final ruling.

“Even though we don’t have a final ruling yet from the court, the signs we heard today from the court are incredibly encouraging,” said LoPresti. “And they reflect what we saw in the court’s tentative order: that the federal government has violated the law. They have tried to move this project through in secrecy without taking the required steps that they had to take in order to move forward legally.”

ICE’s attorneys said the work on the facility began sometime in the Spring of 2026 and revealed that “interior demolition is largely completed.” Both parties have met to negotiate a modified proposal, and the judge has encouraged them to continue talking.  She’s given them until September 15th to work something out before she issues a final order in the case.