Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled today that for the next week, the federal government may not continue its plans to build an immigration center near Gilroy, in unincorporated Santa Clara County.
The pause is temporary. Lee will put out another ruling within seven days, after taking some time to review the evidence, she said in court on Tuesday.
If at that point she grants a preliminary injunction, the project will be on pause while a lawsuit works its way through court, which could be a matter of months or even years.
The Gilroy facility would increase federal agencies’ ability to hold and detain immigrants in Northern California, including those arrested in San Francisco.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement was quietly developing the facility on a 25-acre agricultural parcel that was formally used for research. In June, the San Jose Spotlight, a nonprofit newsroom, discovered and published blueprints of the plans.
The plans revealed the facility would employ around 60 federal officers. The site would have space to hold around 150 immigrants in concrete holding rooms for up to around 12 hours, according to government attorneys and blueprints for the project.
California attorney general Rob Bonta, alongside the Santa Clara County general counsel, filed a lawsuit in June against the federal government to stop the construction. San Francisco, as well as dozens of other California cities and counties, signed an amicus brief supporting the suit.
The lawsuit claims that the construction violates laws that require the federal government to consult the community and local governments before undergoing construction projects.
In addition, the lawsuit raises questions about environmental impact, since the land was formerly an agricultural research site that included pesticide testing.
Tony LoPresti, the county counsel for Santa Clara, said the lawsuit could set a precedent for how local governments challenge other ICE facilities.
During the hearing on Tuesday, attorneys for the federal government argued that the plaintiffs “offer nothing more than fear of hypothetical harm,” regarding the environmental impact.
But the plaintiffs said they are optimistic.
“We do not have to show rock-solid evidence. We have to show likely impacts that need to be analyzed and evaluated,” said LoPresti after the hearing.
The judge’s questions were pointed during the two-and-a-half hour hearing where the two parties deliberated over minutia such as whether the property’s septic system would be able to support the proposed number of occupants at a given time.
“This is a fundamentally flawed site. My hope is that the federal government wakes up to that fact and walks away from this,” said LoPresti.
In response to questions, DHS wrote in a statement it did not reveal facility locations due to a “coordinated campaign of violence against” ICE agents, and provided a long list of undocumented immigrants it had arrested.
“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.”
