New Jersey’s Ban on Private Immigration Detention Centers Struck Down by Court
A federal appeals court has ruled to strike down a law in New Jersey that sought to prevent the federal government from contracting with private firms to operate immigration detention centers across the state. The decision, which was handed down by a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, marks a significant legal victory for the Trump administration as it continues its efforts to expand immigration detention infrastructure.
The ruling supports the Trump administration’s strategy to increase the number of immigration detention centers, with the intent of facilitating the deportation of individuals deemed dangerous by federal authorities. This decision allows private companies like CoreCivic to continue operating existing facilities, including the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility in New Jersey, which has been central to the administration’s deportation efforts.
The law in question was enacted in 2021 by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, a Democrat, who sought to bar private prisons from renewing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The state argued that such measures could interfere with federal immigration functions and that states retained the right to protect public health and safety, particularly in the context of detention centers.
Despite these legal challenges, the court ruled that New Jersey’s law was an overreach, stating that states cannot regulate private entities to the extent that it interferes with federal immigration enforcement. The decision was authored by U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, an appointee of former President Trump. The ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between state and federal authorities in the realm of immigration policy and the role of private companies in these operations.
As the case continues, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has expressed his disappointment, stating that the decision represents a setback for the state and that he is now evaluating next steps. This ruling highlights the broader debate over the responsibilities of state governments in regulating immigration detention and the potential risks associated with relying on private entities for such crucial functions.