Big news from Florida on Tuesday, as the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant victory to both the state and federal government regarding the immigrant detention center commonly referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
In August, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama sycophant, determined that the construction of a facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport likely violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She issued a comprehensive injunction that halted construction and limited the use of the facility, ultimately ordering that it be cleared within 60 days. This was not just a temporary pause; Williams mandated a complete reversal of the previous efforts to build the detention facility.
Both the state and federal defendants appealed the injunction and obtained a stay while the appeal was pending. Recently, the 11th Circuit vacated the lower court’s injunction and remanded the case back to Williams for further proceedings. The ruling says in part:
Florida, not federal, officials constructed the facility. They control the land and “entirely” built the facility at state expense. The only federal action the environmentalists can identify is the decision not to conduct an environmental review. And that decision alone, as all parties agree, is not final agency action. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Trade Representative, 5 F.3d 549, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[A]n agency’s failure to prepare an [environmental impact statement], by itself, is not sufficient to trigger [Administrative Procedure Act] review in the absence of identifiable substantive agency action.”). …
The facility was constructed “with no or minimal federal involvement,” and Homeland Security could not “control the outcome of the project.” 42 U.S.C. § 4336e (10)(B)(i)(II); see also United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 28 F.3d 1563, 1573 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that a project cannot be called federal “when the state agencies retain their state law authority to make the decisions concerning the project”). As the Secretary explains, Florida officials retained final authority over every decision regarding the project, from “the size of the detention facility” and “how many beds it has” to “who will build it, or what materials will be used.” Indeed, if Florida officials decided to stop building or to dedicate the land to address a new emergency, such as hurricane relief, federal officials could not overrule them. Federal authority is, at most, indirect: it is involved in the construction only insofar as it sets the terms for which the facility may be used for detention of aliens, but Florida officials dedicated its land to that use. The Environmental Policy Act applies “only when there is federal decision-making.” S.Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 28 F.3d at 1573. Federal officials made no construction decision capable of triggering the Act. …
Even if the environmentalists and Tribe were likely to succeed on their claim, we would still vacate a portion of the injunction. The district court enjoined federal officials from “bringing any additional persons onto the . . . site who were not already being detained” there. The injunction conflicts with a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that strips the “authority” of district courts “to enjoin or restrain the operation of [sections 1221–1231 of Title 8 of the United States Code]. . . other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 481 (1999).
So, the ruling isn’t particularly lengthy, but here is the Reader’s Digest version of it:
- There isn’t a federal action to challenge, to begin with;
- Even if there had been, Alligator Alcatraz is not ‘federal enough’ to trigger environmental law;
- And if it were enough, courts are not authorized to interfere that way in immigration enforcement ops.
- The decision was a 2-1 ruling, with Judges William Pryor (appointed by Bush 43) and Andrew Brasher (appointed by Trump) in the majority. Judge Nancy Abudu (appointed by Biden) authored the dissent, in which she accused the majority of downplaying federal involvement and altering the factual findings because she’s a leftist and she doesn’t care about anything other than protecting illegal immigrants for her Democrat homies.
This decision sends the case back to the district court without the injunction in place. We can expect the defendants to challenge the venue and move to dismiss the case. In the meantime, the plaintiffs may seek a rehearing en banc at the 11th Circuit and may ultimately file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Therefore, this conflict is not over. However, Tuesday’s ruling represents a significant “W” for the State of Florida and the Trump administration.