Judge orders pause on work at South County ICE facility

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking construction at a proposed ICE facility in South County as the lawsuit against the project plays out in court.

In a 23-page ruling filed Friday, Northern District of California Judge Eumi Lee said that plaintiffs are “likely to succeed” in their claim that the federal government advanced the project taking shape just east of Gilroy without conducting legally mandated environmental reviews. She further found that allowing the project to advance poses immediate risks to the surrounding environment.

“Plaintiffs have also shown that irreparable environmental harms are likely to result if construction proceeds without considering the environmental risks,” Lee wrote.

Under the terms of the provisional preliminary injunction, defendants — including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as ECG6, the property holding company that owns the land — must “pause construction, demolition and development activities” at the site located on unincorporated county land at 7240 Holsclaw Road.

Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said plaintiffs will continue to push for a court order that blocks the project permanently.

“The bottom line here is it’s not the right place for the project. It’s not the right process,” LoPresti told San José Spotlight following a Monday news conference responding to Lee’s ruling. “And once we actually go through the process — we, the plaintiffs, start looking behind the veil here — we’re seeing how problematic this particular location is.”

The decision marks an early victory in a legal campaign seeking to block the federal government’s plan to create an ICE facility that includes office space as well as detention areas. Lee heard arguments from both sides during a hearing held Sept. 8, but did not issue her ruling at the time.

Unless a court reverses Lee’s decision, the preliminary injunction is expected to remain in effect throughout the lawsuit’s trial proceedings — a process that could take years to play out, according to legal experts. No new court dates have yet been set in the lawsuit, according to LoPresti.

Attorneys representing the federal government in the case did not respond to a request for comment. Representatives for ECG6, which is owned by Beverly Hills-based real estate firm Elmwood Capital Group, also did not respond to a request for comment.

Lee’s ruling leaves the door open for a limited number of activities to proceed at the site, including those that “address immediate safety concerns,” such as maintenance and security work. It also allows the federal government to proceed with conducting an environmental review of the proposed facility.

Such allowances could be refined further. Lee’s decision also orders both parties to meet and confer to hash out the details of a finalized preliminary injunction order by Sept. 30. County officials have indicated they would not consent to an agreement that included further construction of the proposed facility.

Detention space in the planned facility would be large enough to hold more than 100 people, according to county officials who have reviewed the federal government’s plans. Revelations about the facility, first reported by San José Spotlight in May, have stoked fears that President Donald Trump’s administration is laying the groundwork for more expansive immigration enforcement operations in the Bay Area, amid a nationwide campaign of mass deportation.

Lee’s Friday ruling has also sparked celebrations among the coalition of immigrant rights advocates who have banded together in recent months to organize local opposition against the planned immigration center.

“I’m a little overwhelmed with the decision — really happy to hear about it,” Rebeca Armendariz, an organizer with the ICE Out of Gilroy Coalition, told San José Spotlight. “I know it’s preliminary, but nonetheless, we’ll take the win.”

Santa Clara County Supervisor Sylvia Arenas also celebrated the victory, adding that she is proud that the county has marshaled its resources to wage this legal fight against the federal government’s plans.

“I’m smiling from ear to ear because I think our community can see that their local government is actually working on their behalf and is working to protect our immigrant community,” Arenas, who represents District 1 where the ICE facility is planned, told San José Spotlight.

The 25-acre parcel likely contains hazardous materials due to its history of use for agricultural research, according to the complaint outlining the state and county’s case.

In laying out the rationale behind her ruling, Lee suggested that she accepts plaintiffs’ argument that the project poses serious environmental risks. Among those, construction work to create the planned facility could release hazardous materials into the environment, plaintiffs have warned. They also contend that the contemplated facility would overburden the site’s existing septic system.

Federal officials have pushed back against such concerns. They argue the project should be granted a “categorical exclusion” from federal environmental review requirements because the site already houses an office building, and the proposed ICE facility will not significantly change how the land has been used.

Despite the addition of detention facilities, defense attorneys said the new development will primarily resemble an office park.

But Lee rejected those arguments in her ruling, noting that the creation of detention facilities marks a substantial change from the property’s prior use as a location to conduct agricultural research.

Lee also rejected a request from ECG6 to impose a $790,308 bond on the plaintiffs to compensate the firm for lost revenue, including foregone rent, should the state and county’s lawsuit fail.

Instead, Lee ordered plaintiffs to post a “nominal” bond of $1,000 with the court.

“It is unfortunate for ECG6 that the Federal Defendants did not take greater care in evaluating environmental consequences before breaking ground, but their failure is no reason to require Plaintiffs to post a bond,” Lee wrote.

Contact Keith Menconi at [email protected] or @KeithMenconi on X. Contact Lorraine Gabbert at [email protected].