WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0Immigration and Customs Enforcement is taking more and more steps to avoid oversight by local and state authorities of immigration detention centers amid growing complaints alleging unsanitary and unsafe conditions at the facilities.<\/p>\n
The efforts to sidestep laws in California and elsewhere take many forms. In some instances, contracts have been changed to declare that the centers are simply not subject to certain local or state laws.<\/p>\n
In other instances, ICE has purchased facilities owned and operated by private companies. Though the companies continue to run the centers holding thousands of detainees, federal ownership could aid their defense in the event of legal action. <\/p>\n
George Zoley, the chief executive of GEO Group, which contracts with ICE to run detention centers in California and across the country, said as much to company shareholders this year. In an earnings call in May, he said that ownership bolsters the facilities\u2019 protection from \u201cunwarranted litigation\u201d around medical care and other detention conditions. <\/p>\n
The federal ownership strategy has become particularly crucial, he said, \u201cas some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Local oversight has taken on greater significance since the Trump administration hollowed out federal offices that were charged with investigating civil rights and safety issues at detention centers and began restricting visits<\/a> by members of Congress. A recent analysis by the Project on Government Oversight<\/a> found detention center inspections under the second Trump administration have increasingly resulted in \u201csuperior\u201d grades.<\/p>\n Eunice Cho, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney and an expert in immigration detention, called ICE\u2019s efforts a \u201cnaked strategy\u201d to evade local scrutiny of detention centers. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is a huge sea change in the way that immigration detention is expanding and hardening in the United States,\u201d she said, adding that \u201cthis was every advocate\u2019s nightmare scenario.\u201d <\/p>\n In California, state leaders once attempted to shut down privately run detention centers and, after losing, resorted instead to proposing other oversight measures. California is home to eight ICE detention centers with a combined capacity of nearly 9,000 people. <\/p>\n State laws allow monitoring and investigation of the facilities by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities. <\/p>\n A 2021 law allows people to sue for damages when private detention center operators fail to follow the care standards laid out in their contracts. Starting in January, another law will require independent medical investigations<\/a> into deaths in law enforcement custody, including in immigrant detention facilities. <\/p>\n Several bills are being considered by the California Legislature that would further regulate detention centers. Among them are bills that would authorize the California attorney general to bring civil action and impose fines to protect detainees\u2019 constitutional rights and require the disclosure of public records, such as 911 calls from the facilities. <\/p>\n Recent attempts to limit California\u2019s oversight actions haven\u2019t been successful. CoreCivic turned San Diego health inspectors away from the Otay Mesa Detention Center in February, but after legal action the visit took place in June<\/a>. <\/p>\n Another oversight battle concerns the rights of detainees who work at a facility, perhaps as a janitor, for $1 per day. <\/p>\n GEO Group recently settled with California regulators after a years-long fight over workplace health and safety violations. The settlement affirmed that immigrants who perform work while detained are considered employees<\/a>. <\/p>\n Weeks earlier, ICE released new detention standards in June declaring that detainees who participate in the voluntary work program aren\u2019t employees \u201cand are not entitled to wages or benefits under applicable wage laws or labor regulations.\u201d <\/p>\n Because the new standards will take effect as contracts are established or modified, the rules don\u2019t yet apply to existing facilities in California, though they were implemented<\/a> at a new facility in Minnesota. <\/p>\n An ICE spokesperson did not respond to questions but said the agency consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including facility operators, while revising its standards. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement, said the agency consistently looks for ways to improve detention facilities to ensure they provide detainees the best care. <\/p>\n \u201cICE is regularly audited and inspected by external agencies to ensure that all ICE facilities comply with performance-based national detention standards,\u201d the spokesperson wrote, adding that \u201cICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n An oversight battle involving changes to contracts is also playing out in other states. <\/p>\n For the last three years, GEO Group has blocked Washington health officials from inspecting the Northwest ICE Processing Center near Seattle despite 3,500 complaints from detainees about black mold, unsafe drinking water and substandard medical care. <\/p>\n A previous contract for the facility stated that services must comply with \u201cfederal, state and local laws and standards. Should a conflict exist between any of these standards, the most stringent shall apply.\u201d <\/p>\n But in March, ICE and GEO Group established a new contract that says the opposite \u2014 that \u201capplicable or more stringent state or local laws or regulations shall not apply.\u201d <\/p>\n A federal district judge, rejecting that contract provision, ruled last month that GEO Group must let health inspectors in, writing that \u201cGEO\u2019s new contract cannot preempt state law, even if it purports to.\u201d That decision is now paused under appeal<\/a>. <\/p>\n