Wilcox: 'The court made the right call here'

Webp 5
Troy A. Miller, senior official performing the duties of the commissioner | cbp.gov/about/leadership-organization/commissioner

Wilcox: 'The court made the right call here'

A federal district court in New Jersey ruled Aug. 29 that a state law prohibiting private detention facilities for immigration violators is unconstitutional. The decision supports the arguments made by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), which filed a brief in the case in July, according to an Aug. 20 news release.

“Given the border security crisis that has escalated the last few years, it is essential for our country to have the ability to detain illegal aliens who have violated federal law and are fighting deportation,” Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI, said in the release. “Immigration is a federal concern, and the New Jersey law was a brazen attempt to interfere with the federal government’s constitutional role. The court made the right call here.”  

The New Jersey law AB 5207 "prohibits state and local entities and private correctional facilities from entering into agreements with federal immigration authorities to detain noncitizens." 

The court found the law intentionally interferes with a federal contracting program, violating the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Immigration, as the court noted, is solely a federal concern, making state-level laws in this area susceptible to preemption.

The IRLI earlier argued the law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause because it disrupts the federal contracting system that is expressly contemplated by immigration statutes, according to the news release.

Interestingly, court documents revealed the contract between the federal government and CoreCivic, the company responsible for providing detention services in New Jersey, was initially set to expire Aug. 31. However, a mandatory notice from the System for Award Management disclosed that the contract has since been renewed, marking the sixth contract renewal.

The ruling could set a precedent for other states contemplating similar legislation. With the current national debate on immigration policy, this case provides an example of the complex interplay between state and federal governments in administering immigration laws and policies.

More News