Federal government pauses construction on ICE detention facility near Gilroy

Ethan Baron, The Mercury News on Jul 13, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The federal government on Monday said it paused construction of U.S. Immigration and Customs detention facility near Gilroy, in a deal with Santa Clara County and the State of California.

ICE and its umbrella agency the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have declined to officially acknowledge the project, which was revealed through news reports based on federal property-procurement documents. The agreement to pause construction, filed Monday in federal court in San Jose, did not contain any acknowledgment from the federal government that the site would be used as a detention center.

The construction pause came amid a lawsuit against ICE by the county and state over the project, and a court motion in that case by the county and state seeking a temporary injunction halting the project.

In a joint agreement presented Monday to the federal court in San Jose, the county and state, and ICE, said ICE “voluntarily paused construction and development activities” at the site on Santa Clara County land just east of Highway 101 and north of Highway 152.

Just before 5 p.m. Monday, a judge approved the deal.

ICE agreed to maintain the pause until Sept. 9.

The court filing Monday described ICE’s temporary stop to construction as a “compromise.” ICE said it needed more time to address the 289-page lawsuit and the 807 pages of the injunction request. The county and state agreed to give ICE an extra five weeks to respond to the lawsuit, and an extra month to respond to the motion for an injunction.

ICE’s response to the lawsuit was due Aug. 24, and its response to the motion for the injunction was due July 13.

Under the new schedule, ICE must respond to the lawsuit by Sept. 30, and to the injunction motion by Aug. 12.

County officials have said the planned facility is designed to hold up to 150 people.

The county and state sued ICE on June 10 over the planned facility, and filed the motion for a temporary injunction June 24.

The agreement asked the court to schedule a hearing on the injunction request after Aug. 26 and before Sept. 9. Judge Eumi Lee on Monday evening set it for Sept. 8 at 2 p.m.

ICE has said, as recently as late May, that it “currently has no plans for a detention center in Gilroy.”

The state and county lawsuit alleges the facility would violate federal environmental laws because the government failed to produce an environmental assessment or impact statement before entering the lease and starting construction. It also claims the project would run afoul of federal immigration law because it is planned for land zoned exclusively for agricultural use, near habitat for several endangered and threatened species.

The lawsuit also targets what state and county officials described as the secrecy surrounding the project, accusing the Trump administration of violating the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act by moving ahead without giving the state or county a meaningful opportunity to weigh in.

The case may turn partly on who would operate the facility. Legal experts have said the Constitution’s supremacy clause gives the federal government broad power to override state and local opposition when it runs a facility directly. But if the facility is privately run, the county and state may have more room to challenge the project through zoning, environmental and other local laws.