US District Judge Eumi Lee threw a legal wrench into the gears of the Trump administration’s border security expansion on Friday, September 11, by halting construction of a planned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility near Gilroy, California. The ruling, issued in a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County, stops work on the 24.5-acre site until the federal government completes its required environmental reviews. It is a significant legal check on federal authority in a state that has repeatedly clashed with Washington over immigration enforcement.
The dispute centers on a property leased by the federal government in January 2025. State and county officials argued that construction began without the mandatory environmental assessment or consultation with local authorities. Judge Lee sided with the plaintiffs, noting that the county and state identified specific environmental harms. The federal government failed to demonstrate that delaying construction would significantly obstruct immigration enforcement or cause substantial economic hardship.
The site presents tangible risks. A previous tenant, a pesticides research company, left behind potential hazardous materials. Construction threatens local wildlife, agricultural land, and existing infrastructure. The existing septic system was designed for about 40 daytime employees, yet the planned facility could host up to 50 immigration agents and 60 daily visitors. Judge Lee wrote that either overburdening the existing system or building a new one poses a risk of irreparable environmental harm.
Federal lawyers had argued the work was merely an office relocation from Morgan Hill and did not require an environmental review. Lee rejected that position, calling the argument “absurd and contradicted by the record,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Bonta stated the administration attempted to advance the project without complying with environmental safeguards or consulting affected communities. Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti questioned whether the project could be completed given the site’s infrastructure limitations.
The court has directed the parties to meet and confer before submitting a proposed order by September 30. This process will determine what activities, if any, can continue at the property while construction remains suspended. LoPresti indicated possible work could include soil testing, inspections, or installing fencing to secure the site. The next step is clear: the government must either fix the environmental deficiencies or face a prolonged legal battle in California courts.