Feds urge judge to reject New Jersey bid to block ICE detention center work in Roxbury

Federal officials are urging a judge to reject New Jersey’s request to block U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from moving forward with early construction work on a controversial detention facility in Morris County, arguing the state has not shown it would suffer immediate harm.

In a lawsuit filed in March, state and local officials argued the proposed ICE facility off Route 46 in Roxbury would increase pollution, worsen traffic, strain public infrastructure, and threaten a protected region that supplies drinking water to millions.

But in an April 23 court filing, attorneys for the federal government said those concerns are “not imminent and too speculative,” and argued the state lacks legal standing to bring the case.

The filing also distinguishes between the long-term operation of a detention center and the initial work planned at the site, which includes installing lighting, security cameras, an emergency generator, and a small checkpoint.

“The state of New Jersey clearly dislikes having immigration detention centers within the state,” the brief reads. “The state was unsuccessful in its attempt to foreclose such centers before. And now, together with the Township of Roxbury, the state will likely not succeed again.”

The governor’s office declined to comment on the federal government’s response. Officials in Roxbury also did not respond to requests for comment.

The case could have broader implications for ICE’s plans to expand detention capacity nationwide. According to documents reviewed in December by The Washington Post, the agency is considering a network of facilities that could hold tens of thousands of detainees.

The filing says ICE intends to use smaller processing centers, like the one proposed in Roxbury, to temporarily hold detainees before transferring them to larger facilities in other states.

The federal government moved forward with the plan in February, purchasing a 470,000-square-foot warehouse at 1879 Route 46 for nearly $130 million.

The State of New Jersey and local officials later sued in federal court, seeking to halt the project. Gov. Mikie Sherrill noted that opposition to the facility crosses party lines.

“This is not a partisan issue,” Sherrill said in a statement accompanying the lawsuit. “Republican leaders in the community are similarly against this facility.”

In the lawsuit, the state alleges ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security failed to comply with federal laws requiring environmental review, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

In response, ICE said it has already conducted a preliminary review of environmental and historic preservation impacts and documented its findings. The agency said a more detailed environmental assessment is underway.

“No ‘substantial work’ has started at the Roxbury property,” the filing reads. “No other work is planned until after ICE issues a final decision following the additional environmental analysis.”

To obtain an emergency injunction, the state must show its case is likely to succeed, that it would suffer irreparable harm without court intervention, that the balance of equities favors the state, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

Federal attorneys have argued the state has failed to meet those standards.

Lawyers for the federal government argue that the state’s claims rely on speculative harms and do not demonstrate a likelihood of success. They also argue that the public interest favors allowing the project to proceed, citing federal immigration enforcement priorities.

“When one party is a United States agency, the public interest and the agency’s interest merge,” the filing reads. “Here, the significant national interest in combatting unlawful immigration favors allowing ICE to continue.”

Federal officials also disputed claims about the size of the proposed facility, saying it would house about 542 detainees — far fewer than the 1,500 cited by the state and Roxbury officials.

The court has not yet ruled on the state’s request for a preliminary injunction.