Corecivic, Inc. v. Murphy

• Docket Number: Civil Action 23-967 (RK) (TJB)
• Decision Date: 29 August 2023
• Parties: CORECIVIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHILIP D. MURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey, and MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

CORECIVIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHILIP D. MURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey, and MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-967 (RK) (TJB)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 29, 2023

OPINION

KIRSCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

In August 2021, New Jersey enacted Assembly Bill 5207 (“AB 5207”), which prohibits New Jersey, its political subdivisions, and private entities from prospectively contracting to own or operate any facility that detains individuals for violating civil immigration laws. Only the federal government enacts or enforces immigration law. At the time of AB 5207 's passage, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the division of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) responsible for detaining individuals for civil immigration violations, had use of four detention facilities in New Jersey. Shortly after AB 5207's passage, three of the four facilities - all operated by New Jersey counties - stopped housing detainees on ICE's behalf. The one remaining facility in New Jersey, the Elizabeth Detention Center (“EDC”), is operated by Plaintiff CoreCivic, Inc. (“Plaintiff' or “CoreCivic”) pursuant to an ICE contract. The contract will expire on August 31, 2023. At that time, AB 5207 will prohibit ICE and Plaintiff from renewing their contract, and the federal government will lack any facility in New Jersey to hold individuals detained for civil immigration violations.

Plaintiff contends that AB 5207 violates the Supremacy Clause by precluding Plaintiff and ICE from renewing their contract. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants Philip D. Murphy, the Governor of New Jersey, and Matthew J. Platkin, the Attorney General of New Jersey (“Defendants” or “New Jersey”), from enforcing AB 5207 against Plaintiff with respect to its relationship with ICE. (Id.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from AB 5207's enforcement. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff filed its moving brief (Pl.'s Br., ECF No. 17-4), and the United States filed a statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 in support of the preliminary injunction (U.S.'s Br ECF No. 37). Defendants opposed the preliminary injunction motion (Defs.' Br., ECF No. 41), and Plaintiff filed a reply brief (ECF No. 45). The Court has received declarations from each party in interest, including Plaintiff (ECF Nos 17-1, 17-2), Defendants (ECF No. 41-1), and the United States (ECF Nos. 37-1, 37-2).

On August 14, 2023 the Court heard oral argument from the parties and the United States. Given the solely constitutional questions underpinning Plaintiffs claim, the parties consented to entry of a final decision on the merits after the hearing. (Letter, ECF No. 47.) The Court thus construes Plaintiff s and Defendants' briefs as cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court enters judgment in Plaintiffs favor, declares AB 5207 unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs operation of the EDC to hold detainees on ICE's behalf, and permanently enjoins Defendants from enforcing AB 5207 against Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff s relationship with ICE.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Federal Immigration Detention

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” Arizona v. United States, 561 U.S. 387, 394 (2012) (citing Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1,10 (1982)). This authority flows from “the National Government's constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,' and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. at 394-95 (quoting U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 4, then citing Toll, 458 U.S. at 10). “Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so.” Id. at 396. “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” Id. “Agencies in [DHS],” including ICE, “play a major role in enforcing the country's immigration laws.” Id. at 397.

Unlawfully entering or re-entering the United States violates federal law. Id. at 395. “The federal statutory structure instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process.” Id. at 407. Under certain circumstances, Congress requires ICE to detain non-citizens pending resolution of their immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (“During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1225(b)(2)(A) (requiring that an “alien shall be detained” under certain circumstances); 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) (stating that the Attorney General “shall take into custody any alien who” is inadmissible or deportable pursuant to certain enumerated statutes).^[2] Under other circumstances, Congress delegated the decision whether detention for a civil immigration violation is appropriate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“[A]n alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”); see also (Guadian Deci. ¶ 6 (“While ICE has discretion to release certain noncitizens pending their removal proceedings if they are not flight risks and do not pose a public-security threat, ICE is required to detain categories of noncitizens who are subject to mandatory detention under the immigration laws or those who pose risk to public safety.”).)

Congress has likewise granted DHS discretion over the manner in which it detains individuals for civil immigration violations. “The Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1).^[3] Before constructing a new detention facility, DHS “shall consider the availability for purchase or lease of any existing prison, jail, detention center, or other comparable facility suitable for such use.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(2). DHS has promulgated regulations permitting ICE to “enter into contracts of up to fifteen years' duration for detention or incarceration space or facilities, including related services.” 48 C.F.R. § 3017.204-90. However, when ICE contracts with a “private entit[y]” to detain individuals in ICE's custody, the private contractor must comply with the “Standard Statement of Work for Contract Detention Facilities” and meet “four mandatory criteria.” 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(e).

“ICE neither constructs nor solely operates its own immigration detention facilities.” (Burke Deel. 8.) Instead, the federal government houses immigration detainees through a network of facilities, namely (1) ICE-owned, contractor-operated facilities; (2) contractor-owned and contractor-operated facilities; and (3) facilities owned by or operated on behalf of local governments pursuant to an “Intergovernmental Service Agreement.” (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.)^[4] This affords ICE necessary “flexibility” given “significant fluctuations in the number and location of removable noncitizens apprehended by DHS and subject to detention.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Through this approach, ICE avoids “invest[ing] heavily in its own facilities only to have them stand idle if a particular area later experiences a drastic decrease in demand for detainee housing.” (Id.)

B. ICE's New Jersey Facilities and CoreCivic

“The federal government has been housing immigration detainees in New Jersey since at least 1986.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Prior to AB 5207's passage, “ICE had use of four contracts to house detainees in New Jersey: two intergovernmental-service agreements with Essex County and Hudson County, the use of the U.S. Marshals' agreement with Bergen County, and the privately owned-and-operated Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility run by CoreCivic.” (Id. ¶ 14.) ICE's access to the New Jersey counties' facilities was terminated in 2021 after the passage of AB 5207. (M ¶ 15.)

CoreCivic operates private detention facilities nationwide pursuant to contracts with states and their subdivisions as well as the federal government. (Verhulst Deci. ¶ 5.) CoreCivic operates the EDC in Elizabeth, New Jersey, pursuant to a contract with ICE. (Id. ¶ 6.) ICE awarded CoreCivic the initial contract to operate the EDC in 2005 for a three-year period, and renewed the contract five times. (Id. ¶ 7.) The current contract is set to expire on August 31, 2023. (Id.)^[5]

The EDC is the “only facility that houses ICE detainees within 60 miles of New York City.” (Guadian Deci. ¶ 8.) The facility has the capacity to hold 304 detainees. (Burke Deci. ¶ 16.) The EDC recorded “2,142 immigration detainees book-ins during Fiscal Year 2022, and 2,035 book-ins for Fiscal Year 2023 (as of July 15, 2023).” (Guadian Deci. ¶ 8.) As of mid-June 2023, the EDC held approximately 285 detainees. (Verhulst Deci. ¶ 6.) ICE originally housed only “low-risk noncitizens, such as those who have recently crossed the border and those with minor criminal offenses” at the EDC. (Burke Deci. ¶ 17.) However, after AB 5207's passage in August 2021, ICE began “detain[ing] higher-risk individuals (those classified as Medium-High- and High-risk) for up to 72 hours” at the EDC. (Id. ¶ 18.)

C. AB 5207

New Jersey Assembly Bill 5207, L.2021, c. 199, §§ 1-2 codified at N.J. Stat. Ann. §§30:4-8.15 to -8.16 was enacted on August 20, 2021 and became effective the same day. The legislative findings section of AB 5207 emphasizes “the responsibility of the State to protect the health and safety, including the physical and mental health, of individuals detained witbin New Jersey.” N.J.S.A. §...