Body of News Release
Marin County, CA – The County of Marin is joining official opposition to a planned federal immigration enforcement detention facility in southern Santa Clara County.
The Marin County Counsel’s Office announced its intention to sign an amicus curiae brief, authored by the Public Rights Project, in support of litigation brought by the California Attorney General and Santa Clara County regarding the planned facility near Gilroy. The lawsuit seeks judicial review of a facility that public records indicate is intended to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
The Marin County Board of Supervisors approved the filing of the brief during its June 23 closed session.
The County of Marin and other plaintiffs allege the project was undertaken without required local review and permitting processes. The facility would have impacts throughout the Bay Area and Central Coast regions.
Marin’s amicus brief will be in support of a motion for preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs are likely to file later this week. The brief will focus on the various laws that have been violated in the development of this facility and the various harms that local communities will experience if an ICE detention facility is constructed in the Bay Area. Research shows that communities near ICE facilities see an increase in immigration arrests. Studies have also shown that increased immigration enforcement has tangible negative impacts on the economies of local communities, including lost wages and missed work hours, as well as residents being less likely to contact law enforcement or attend routine medical appointments.
Joining the lawsuit demonstrates a continuation of ongoing work by the County of Marin to evaluate and address the local impacts of federal immigration policies.
The County’s participation in this litigation reflects its commitment to the principle that all government agencies, at every level, must follow the law when carrying out their responsibilities, and that courts play an essential and constitutional role in determining whether those legal requirements have been met.
“The Marin County Board of Supervisors remains firmly committed to opposing unlawful removals, federal overreach, and actions that undermine due process, community trust, and the rule of law,” said Eric Lucan, President of the Board of Supervisors “Immigrants have long been, and continue to be, an essential part of Marin’s community, economy, culture, and shared future, and the County will continue to stand with immigrant residents and families through advocacy, legal action, and direct support.”
In March 2025, the Board committed $500,000 to invest in safeguarding immigrant communities, with resources directed toward legal rights education, family and child support services, and other coordinated support. In March and May of 2026, the Board augmented that initial investment by a total of $1 million to continue providing these critical support services to immigrant children and families for a total of $1.5 million over two years.
These investments helped create an emergency assistance fund for immigrant families impacted by detention, expanded legal services for immigrants, and deepened the capacity of the Marin Rapid Response Network to make residents aware of their legal rights. The 24-hour rapid response hotline is 415-991-4545. The County maintains a webpage that summarizes local assistance and resources for immigrants.
Additionally, the County has joined the San Francisco v. Trump litigation, which challenges the executive branch’s attempts to deny federal funding for “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The County has also joined two lawsuits challenging the executive branch’s efforts to require cooperation with immigration enforcement as a condition of receiving federal grant funding. The County has also authorized providing amicus support to the plaintiffs in Minnesota v. Noem and Illinois v. Department of Homeland Security, cases brought by local governments challenging increased immigration enforcement activities in targeted jurisdictions as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First Amendment.