Lawsuit Seeks to Shut Down Florida Immigration Detention Center in Everglades over Environmental Concerns and Violations of Federal Law

In Miami, a court hearing concluded this week over a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, the Miccosukee tribe, and other parties contesting the operation of an immigration detention center situated in the Florida Everglades. The crux of the legal dispute remains unresolved, with Judge Kathleen Williams repeatedly posing the question: Who governs the facility, colloquially known as “Alligator Alcatraz”?

During proceedings, lawyers for two environmental organizations referred to statements from Trump administration officials indicating the center is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. However, Florida’s legal counsel could not definitively identify who holds command at the site, asserting that it operates under ICE authorization but is essentially a state detention center.

As the legal process unfolds, immigration-related activities at the facility will persist. The ambiguity regarding the entity in charge of the center, however, merits attention.

The plaintiffs, comprising Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee tribe—which holds traditional rights to the region—argue that the hastened construction without public input or environmental impact assessment violates federal law. They are petitioning the court to shut down the facility.

The case hinges on NEPA—the National Environmental Policy Act—which requires federal agencies to assess alternatives, engage the public, and evaluate environmental impacts prior to initiating projects. Florida and the Trump administration’s legal teams argue that this legislation does not apply because the center is state-run.

Adam Gustafson, a Justice Department lawyer, claimed during the hearing that the case revolves around control. He emphasized that at the site, “The federal government has no action or power to control the activity.”

Paul Schweip, an attorney with Friends of the Everglades, countered that Florida and the Trump administration have intentionally avoided clarifying who controls the site. The detention center, he stated, serves one specific function: immigration detention—an area of jurisdiction that, legally, falls under federal authority.

The facility, equipped with tents and cells for up to 5,000 immigration detainees, is located at a seldom-used airfield within the Big Cypress National Preserve’s wetlands. During the hearing, lawyers for the environmental groups presented evidence detailing the center’s adverse effects on protected species and water quality in the area.

Randy Kautz, a wildlife ecologist who contributed to Florida’s Panther Recovery plan, testified that increased activity and human presence at the site may displace approximately 2,000 acres of habitat for endangered Florida panthers, with an estimated population of 120-230 individuals.

Wetlands Ecologist Christopher McVoy, who contributed to the Everglades restoration plan, raised concerns about twenty acres of new asphalt paving at the site and its potential impact on water quality in the fragile ecosystem, which has a minimal level of nitrates and phosphates. Runoff containing nutrients and pollutants, he warned, would significantly harm native vegetation and neighboring wetlands.

Employees of the Miccosukee tribe testified about the impact increased activity at the site has on tribal villages situated nearby. They expressed concerns regarding contaminated runoff that may affect both the environment and human health, as well as the influence of bright lights from the facility on another endangered species, the bonneted bat.

The plaintiffs have requested Judge Williams to issue a preliminary injunction compelling the state and federal governments to remove lighting, fencing, and waste from the site, restore access for Miccosukee tribe members, and cease operations within 14 days. In August, Judge Williams issued a two-week temporary restraining order on new construction at the facility, with a ruling on the injunction pending before the order’s expiration.