Federal Appeals Court Upholds Operation of Controversial Immigration Detention Facility

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld the continued operation of Alligator Alcatraz, an immigration detention facility in Florida, after blocking a lower court ruling that had ordered its closure. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted requests from the State of Florida and the Department of Homeland Security to stay a preliminary injunction requiring the facility to shut down within 60 days.

The decision allows Alligator Alcatraz to remain open as legal challenges against the facility proceed through the court system. Governor Ron DeSantis hailed the ruling, stating, “The mission continues at Alligator Alcatraz. The media was wrong. The leftist judge has been overturned. Florida will keep leading the way.”

Writing for the appeals court panel, Judge Barbara Lagoa criticized a lower court’s finding that the migrant detention center qualified as a major federal action requiring environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She noted that while DHS had announced $600 million in potential funding for the facility, no final allocation had been made. The appeals court also rejected arguments that the facility’s classification as a federal operation was justified by statements from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and DeSantis about possible state reimbursement.

A U.S. District Court judge earlier ordered the facility’s expansion halted and its operations wound down due to concerns about environmental harm to the Big Cypress National Preserve. Environmental groups had sued, claiming ICE failed to provide a compelling emergency justification under NEPA for constructing a detention center in a protected ecosystem.

The appeals court ruling was issued by Judges Barbara Lagoa and Elizabeth Branch, both appointed during President Trump’s first term, while Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama nominee, dissented. DHS praised the decision, calling it a “win for the American people, the rule of law and common sense,” and framing the litigation as a broader conflict over immigration enforcement.

Back To Top