Mountain View enters legal fight over Gilroy ICE facility

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Mountain View City Council took action on multiple fronts Tuesday to push back against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, formally opposing plans for a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility near Gilroy and passing a policy banning city property from being used for civil immigration enforcement.

Santa Clara County and the state of California recently sued the federal government trying to stop an ICE detention center from being built in unincorporated land near Gilroy.

At a June 23 meeting, Mountain View council members voted 5-0 in closed session, with Chris Clark and John McAlister abstaining, to sign onto a legal brief supporting a request for a court order to halt construction, City Attorney Jennifer Logue announced after the council returned to open session.

Later in the meeting, the council voted unanimously to enact a policy prohibiting federal agents from conducting civil immigration enforcement on city property, including parks, parking lots, garages, vacant lots, open space and city buildings. It would not apply to criminal law enforcement.

The actions come amid the Trump administration’s broader deportation campaign and continued pushback from immigrant advocates. Across the country, ICE activity has prompted protests, particularly surrounding the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis earlier this year. Repeated protests and student walkouts have occurred locally, including multiple demonstrations in Mountain View.

Members of the public showed up to Tuesday’s meeting holding signs with slogans like “Fire ICE” and “ICE Out!”

During public comment, Erik Poicon, a member of the Human Relations Committee who is currently running for City Council, thanked council members for passing the policy, which he said mattered to immigrant residents.

“Many others and I are glad to see this policy passed on tonight’s consent calendar, keeping the city property off limits for immigration enforcement, protecting our neighbors and our city employees,” Poicon said.

He then asked audience members who supported these efforts to stand. Dozens of people in the council chambers rose. He added that joining the legal brief “adds real legal weight to a case that could keep the facility from ever opening.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County allege in their lawsuit that the project violates federal and state laws.

During public comment before the closed session, a Mountain View resident urged the council to join the amicus brief supporting the lawsuit and thanked the city for drafting the “no staging policy.”

Another speaker, who said he has lived in Mountain View for more than 20 years, also urged the city to join the legal effort, in addition to prohibiting ICE from using city property.

“I’m asking you to do more,” he said. “As a citizen, I know what I’ll be doing. I’m going to be there with my sign, and I’m thinking, ‘Garlic, Not Gulags.’”

What the city property policy does

Tuesday’s vote to restrict the use of city property for immigration enforcement came after council members voted 5-2 on May 26 to direct staff to draft such a policy. At the time, Clark and McAlister were opposed, but both voted in favor on Tuesday.

Under the new policy, city-owned or city-controlled land isn’t allowed to be used as staging areas, processing locations or operations bases for civil immigration enforcement.

The policy is limited in scope. It does not apply to enforcing criminal laws or executing judicial warrants. Federal agents also can’t be banned from being in public spaces, according to a city staff report. The city has not specified how its new restrictions would be enforced.

Mountain View joins several nearby jurisdictions that have adopted similar policies, including Santa Clara County, the Valley Transportation Authority and the cities of Campbell, Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale.

The new policy builds on a protocol Mountain View developed in October 2025 governing city employees’ interactions with federal agents. The protocol instructs employees who encounter federal agents at a city facility, park, event or program to ask what agency the agents are with, seek their contact information, ask whether they have a request of the city and contact a manager before proceeding.

City employees are also warned not to interfere with federal law enforcement operations, noting that doing so could result in being charged with a federal crime.

Beyond the lawsuit and the policy, the council also used Tuesday’s meeting to proclaim June as Immigrant Heritage Month in Mountain View. María Marroquín, executive director of the Day Worker Center of Mountain View, accepted the proclamation and urged the council to consider the impact of its decisions on immigrant residents and workers.

“As you move into today’s agenda, you will have the power to make decisions that directly impact the stability and prosperity of our community’s most vulnerable members, those who are too often overlooked, but yet form the very backbone of Mountain View,” Marroquin said.

She asked the council to make decisions that “protect, lift up and guarantee the dignity of our community.”

Comments (4)

K Jun 26, 2026 at 7:40PM

ICE Doesn’t Need Collaboration From Anyone! They are Doing a Marvelous Job All By Themselves !

To all those who support people who break our laws. You are losing ! ICE is expanding in every way with lots of money………………….Way more than those Complicit with and Aiding & Abetting Illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump two major immigration victories, affirming the administration’s legal authority to heavily restrict asylum claims and advance its mass deportation agenda. The landmark 6–3 conservative majority rulings provide significant legal backing to the administration’s strict border policies.

Key Supreme Court Decisions
The high court ruled along ideological lines on two fast-tracked immigration cases:

Asylum Rejections (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado):
The court ruled that U.S. officials can legally turn away asylum seekers at the southern border before they step foot on U.S. soil. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that individuals turned away before entering have not legally “arrived” in the country, effectively greenlighting the administration’s strict border “metering” and restriction policies.

Revoking Temporary Protected Status (Mullin v. Doe):
The court cleared the path for the administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and over 6,000 Syrian nationals. This decision strips these individuals of their work permits and legal protection, making them eligible for immediate deportation.

Broader Policy Impact
These decisions are a massive boost for the White House’s immigration agenda, managed heavily by policy chief Stephen Miller:

Expansion of Mass Deportations: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can now utilize these rulings as “important tools” to broaden the pool of noncitizens eligible for deportation.

Border Closures:
The administration has already taken sweeping executive actions, including closing select ports of entry and freezing standard asylum adjudications.

Future Legal Battles
While the Trump administration celebrated these victories, its immigration agenda faces additional scrutiny:

Birthright Citizenship:
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the administration’s highly controversial bid to end birthright citizenship, though legal experts anticipate the conservative majority may draw a line at rewriting constitutional definitions of citizenship.

Mandatory Detention Challenges:
The administration has also requested the Supreme Court to intervene regarding a lower court setback over the mandatory detention of long-term immigrants without bond hearings.

Joe Smith Jun 26, 2026 at 9:04PM

After reading the article, I’ll admit I’m confused. What were the restrictions on ICE supposed to be? Not that it would matter what a silly city council said regarding this because anyone from the Mountain View Police to the city council members that tried to interfere or impede federal agents would seem to me to be at risk of being arrested and charged with federal crimes by the federal agents they were interfering with.

Steven Inberg Jun 27, 2026 at 7:07AM

Why do they think Federal law doesn’t apply to them?

mb Jun 28, 2026 at 7:24PM

how about focusing on Mountain View – shoring up the downtown, increasing the miserable vacancy rates, etc. Bunch of virtue signaling.

Don't miss a story.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply