A federal appeals court on Thursday halted a lower court ruling that would have required Alligator Alcatraz, an immigration detention facility in Florida, to be dismantled. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted requests from the State of Florida and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stay a preliminary injunction that would have forced the facility to cease operations within 60 days. The decision allows Alligator Alcatraz to remain open while legal challenges against its existence continue.
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.” Judge Barbara Lagoa, writing for the majority, criticized the lower court’s assertion that the migrant detention center constituted a major federal action requiring environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She noted that DHS had only pledged $600 million to the facility, which remains unfinalized.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida had previously classified the center as a federal operation based on statements from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and DeSantis suggesting potential reimbursement for construction. However, the appeals court ruled that such expectations were insufficient to federalize the project. Judge Kathleen Williams had ordered the facility’s expansion halted and its operations wound down, citing harm to the Big Cypress National Preserve. Environmental groups opposed the site, arguing ICE lacked a compelling emergency justification under NEPA to build a 5,000-bed detention center in a protected ecosystem.
The majority ruling was authored 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 framed the lawsuit as a partisan effort to obstruct immigration enforcement. The agency stated the case was never about environmental impacts but rather “open-borders activists and judges” seeking to block removals of “dangerous criminal aliens.”
