![\"California](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/US-NEWS-IMMIGRATION-PAROLE-OPTIONS-FR.JPG\" "\\"California")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
California City Immigration Processing Center is California’s largest ICE detention facility. The 2,560-bed facility was formerly a privately-operated state prison until it closed in early 2024. It is one of two purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.<\/p>\n
MELISSSA MONTALVO<\/p>\n
The Fresno Bee<\/p>\n
The Department of Homeland Security\u2019s purchase of two privately-run immigration detention facilities in California is likely an attempt to circumvent current and future state oversight, according to legal experts, lawmakers and immigration advocates.<\/p>\n
DHS bought the two facilities, the California City Immigration Processing Center and Otay Mesa Detention Center, earlier this month from private prison operator CoreCivic for $1.5 billion.<\/a> The company will continue operating both centers under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.<\/p>\n The purchase comes as California has emerged as one of the nation\u2019s most aggressive states in trying to regulate state detention centers.<\/p>\n California is one of only a few states that requires independent inspections and periodic reports on detention conditions. Democratic lawmakers have introduced at least nine detention-related bills \u2014 among a slate of measures focused on immigration \u2014 during this year\u2019s legislative session, according to a review of the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.<\/p>\n The facilities have also faced years of legal scrutiny. Multiple lawsuits have alleged unsafe conditions, interference with public health inspections and an illegal opening of a center.<\/p>\n By now taking ownership of the detention centers, the federal government could argue the facilities are entitled to broader immunity from some state oversight efforts and lawsuits.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not an accident that this is happening in a state that does allow for state oversight of detention facilities,\u201d said Alexa Van Brunt, director of the Illinois office at the MacArthur Justice Center, a national, nonprofit civil rights organization. \u201cNot all states have that provision in their local legislation. So this strikes me as an intentional way to evade.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether those arguments ultimately succeed would likely be decided by the courts. But the purchase raises questions about whether \u2014 and to what extent \u2014 California\u2019s existing and proposed laws governing federally-owned detention centers will remain effective at curbing abuses amid President Donald Trump\u2019s immigration crackdown.<\/p>\n \u201cHow far states can push back against this kind of behavior is very much up in the air,\u201d said Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the public interest law firm Institute for Justice.<\/p>\n In response to questions, a DHS spokesperson said ICE cannot rely on \u201clocal, state and county partners for detention space in California.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe state\u2019s sanctuary politicians continue to push legislation to outlaw or make private prisons financially infeasible,\u201d the spokesperson said in a written statement.<\/p>\n The agency did not respond to a question about whether more purchases would follow in the state, though The Washington Post reported earlier in March<\/a> that ICE was targeting the acquisition of at least three facilities in California. Recent earning calls by private prison companies<\/a> that own the centers also signal the government is moving toward federal ownership of the facilities.<\/p>\n \u2018More onerous to hold DHS liable\u2019<\/p>\n California largely began its regulation of state immigration detention centers in 2017.<\/p>\n Among the most noteworthy legislation passed that year was Assembly Bill 103, which granted the California Department of Justice oversight authority to regularly inspect and report on the conditions of facilities operating in the state.<\/p>\n The DOJ has produced five reports since that time. In its latest 175-page report published in May, the DOJ found that conditions had largely worsened<\/a> as the federal administration\u2019s mass deportation campaign led to \u201covercrowding and strained resources.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI hope this report will generate the rightful outrage and urgency necessary to improve conditions and protect detainees\u2019 civil rights,\u201d said Attorney General Rob Bonta at a press conference announcing the report.<\/p>\n But such detailed reports may no longer be possible at the two DHS-owned facilities in California, said Van Brunt. She noted that AB 103 language states that the attorney general can engage in reviews of \u201ccounty, local or private locked\u201d \u2014 not federal \u2014 detention facilities.<\/p>\n Van Brunt said inspection reports by a state attorney are crucial in lawsuits alleging constitutional violations. Without these reports, evidence is harder to obtain and show.<\/p>\n \u201cTo that point, it will make it more onerous to hold DHS liable,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Bonta\u2019s office did not respond to a request for comment on whether DHS ownership of the facilities could limit the state\u2019s ability to enforce its oversight laws, including AB 103.<\/p>\n The legislation is set to expire, though state Sen. Mar\u00eda Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, has introduced a bill to make the inspections permanent. That bill also uses similar language.<\/p>\n Durazo, through a written statement, called it \u201cunacceptable\u201d if the federal government is purchasing facilities to \u201cplace them beyond the reach of state inspections.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornians deserve to know what is happening inside detention facilities within our borders, regardless of who owns them,\u201d she said. \u201cWe will continue to push for every tool available to ensure that transparency does not disappear.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Still need to follow state health and safety standards\u2019<\/p>\n Even with federal ownership, Bidwell said the state will have some legal authority for oversight as the private contractors are still operating the sites in California.<\/p>\n The management contract for the California City facility expires in August 2027, and the management contract for the Otay Mesa facility expires in December 2029 with a five-year extension option.<\/p>\n Bidwell pointed to a lawsuit last year in Washington in which Tacoma detainees sued the private prison company GEO Group over minimum wage violations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supported its finding in favor of the detainees by saying that the detention center \u201cis not a \u2018federal facility.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t get you there because as long as facilities are not authorized by the federal government, the lawyers on the other side will always be able to at least up the view that these are still contractors who are doing those jobs, and they\u2019re subject to regulation,\u201d Bidwell said.<\/p>\n Many of the California bills related to detention facilities introduced in this legislation cycle specifically name the involvement of private operators as part of the definition of a center in the state. Among them are efforts to impose a 50% tax on a private detention operator\u2019s gross receipts from ICE and a requirement for local agencies to release records of 911 calls from private detention facilities.<\/p>\n State Sen. Sasha Ren\u00e9e P\u00e9rez, D-Alhambra, said her SB 995, which would authorize the California Department of Public Health to inspect facilities, was crafted to regulate private contractors of the facilities. The bill could not target the federal government because of its constitutional protections, she added.<\/p>\n \u201cCoreCivic is still the private contractor doing operations in these facilities, and as a private contractor, as a company, they still need to follow state health and safety standards,\u201d P\u00e9rez said.<\/p>\n The Sacramento Bee\u2019s Andrew Graham contributed to this story.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n