South County cities pass on joining ICE facility lawsuit

Advocates campaigning against a planned ICE facility in South County are expressing disappointment after two nearby cities decided not to throw their support behind a lawsuit challenging the project.

Multiple city and county governments across the Bay Area and beyond have signed onto an amicus brief in support of the case filed last month by Santa Clara County and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. But two notable exceptions have raised eyebrows — Gilroy and Morgan Hill, which are just down the road from the 7240 Holsclaw Road site, where work on a 20,000 square-foot facility with detention space for undocumented immigrants appears to already be underway.

Local activists have called on the cities’ leaders to take action to oppose the facility since San José Spotlight first reported on it in May.

While the Gilroy City Council voted in favor of a resolution opposing the project June 1, councilmembers seem unlikely to sign onto the “friend of the court” brief. Such documents allow parties not involved in a court case to submit arguments.

Meanwhile, the Morgan Hill City Council appears to have voted down a proposal to sign onto the brief during a June 24 closed session meeting.

In contrast, several other local governments have formally signaled support for Santa Clara County’s lawsuit, including the cities of San Jose, Mountain View and Palo Alto as well as Monterey, Marin and Santa Cruz counties. The lawsuit asks the court to put a halt to work at the site, arguing federal authorities have advanced the project without conducting environmental reviews or consulting with state and local authorities, as required by law. It also maintains the facility violates zoning rules that reserve the property exclusively for agricultural uses.

Advocates maintain that securing broad support for the amicus brief, which has not yet been filed, could help bolster the legal argument to block the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility by demonstrating widespread local opposition. However, this latest episode has revealed that the issue continues to divide South County communities.

“When we look at all of the different jurisdictions that did sign on, the fact that the city that is kind of the epicenter of this did not confounds me,” Erin O’Brien, who is on the leadership team for Indivisible South County, among the groups organizing against the ICE facility, told San José Spotlight. “I think the decision lacked courage.”

Gilroy Mayor Greg Bozzo confirmed there are no plans to bring any items related to the lawsuit back before the city council, which is out on July recess.

By approving the June 1 resolution, councilmembers signaled formal opposition to any federal detention facility “that would adversely affect the agricultural, tourism, hospitality, economic development, community cohesion and planning objectives of the region.” Bozzo contends it’s a sufficient response, and said conducting a legal review of the amicus brief would require money and manpower the city presently doesn’t have.

“We came out with (the resolution) very quickly and made it clear how inappropriate we view the facility at that location,” Bozzo told San José Spotlight. “Right now, we are just going to focus on what Gilroy already has on its plate, trying to meet all the needs of Gilroy.”

The Morgan Hill council did take up a proposal, introduced by Councilmember Yvonne Martinez Beltran, to support the lawsuit. However, councilmembers took no action during their closed session meeting, a sign that the proposal was voted down.

Vice Mayor Marilyn Librers declined to comment on the proceedings, citing rules preventing councilmembers from discussing closed-door deliberations. The council’s opaque handling of the proposal has angered some residents, leading to calls for a full disclosure of how the vote proceeded.

For her part, Martinez Beltran called the vote’s outcome disappointing.

“While our neighbors stepped up … the council did not protect our own Morgan Hill residents and interests,” she told San José Spotlight. “(Taking) no action invites ICE, instead of standing up to the detrimental impact it would have to our local (agriculture) economy, environment and public safety, let alone unraveling the fabric of our welcoming and family-friendly community.”

Residents turned out in large numbers to speak in favor of more aggressive actions against the ICE facility at both the June meetings in Gilroy and Morgan Hill. In addition to urging support for the lawsuit, they asked councilmembers to adopt “no-staging zone” policies prohibiting the use of city property for immigration enforcement operations. Such policies have been adopted in San Jose and other local cities, as well as Santa Clara County.

Residents argued visible immigration enforcement could harm the local economy in an area that is home to a large number of immigrant workers and includes extensive agricultural land. They also warned allowing the ICE facility to open would undermine trust in law enforcement and harm public safety.

“Gilroy is a diverse community and this facility would disproportionately impact people of color and immigrants and their families,” Gilroy resident Yvette Gasca said during the June 1 council meeting. “Many residents may feel less safe in accessing our schools and community resources.”

But some residents oppose any move by local leaders to support Santa Clara County’s lawsuit, with some voicing support for the ICE facility. Dozens spoke out in a letter writing campaign urging the Morgan Hill City Council to drop the proposal to sign onto the amicus brief.

“I encourage the Council to focus on issues that directly impact Morgan Hill residents and to carefully consider whether participation in this legal action serves the best interests of our community,” Morgan Hill resident Morgan Dominguez wrote.

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