The Legal Priorities Exposed by Alligator Alcatraz

Claudia Thompson, BSc Politics and Philosophy 

On the 22^nd of August this year, US District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a preliminary injunction ① ordering Florida to wind down operations at the South Florida Detention Facility, informally known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” within 60 days. The facility’s rapid 8-day construction and reliance on temporary structures, such as tents and FEMA trailers, to confine nearly 3,000 people had invited humanitarian scrutiny from the very beginning. Unsurprisingly, several human rights lawsuits were filed. However, it was not these complaints that ultimately triggered the court-ordered shutdown. The reasoning was not substantive at all but purely procedural: the state had neglected to submit the required environmental compliance documentation.  

Alligator Alcatraz is an emblem of the Trump administration's hard stance against illegal immigration. Built on an existing airstrip in the remote UNESCO World Heritage site of the Everglades, surrounded by pythons and alligators, officials joyfully sang there would be “nowhere to go, nowhere to hide” ② for the immigrants held there. Trump celebrated its opening with a televised visit and boasted about delivering on his promise for swift mass deportations.  

It quickly became apparent that conditions inside were as inhumane as the officials enforcing them. Members of Congress reported seeing “hundreds of migrants confined in cages amid sweltering heat, bug infestations and meager meals” ③. There were reports of detainees crying “libertad” and holding hunger strikes ④ to protest their degrading treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union ⑤ filed a lawsuit alleging denial of access to legal representation - a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to ‘due process’ to ‘all persons.’ Despite these testimonies, no court ordered the facility to close on humanitarian grounds.  

Simultaneously, environmental groups including the Friends of the Everglades and Earthjustice along with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, presented evidence that the facility threatened the ecosystem of the Everglades and violated environmental law ⑥. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 requires federal agencies to conduct environmental assessments before undertaking ‘major actions.’ It establishes clear procedural requirements and measurable standards with immediate consequences for noncompliance indicating environmental harm is simply easier to prove, prevent and litigate than the abuse of vulnerable people. 

Judge Williams’ decision relied on concrete, quantifiable violations ⑦: 800,000 square feet of unauthorised paving without stormwater treatment causing contaminated runoff that could degrade the surrounding wetlands. She highlighted light pollution disrupting the habitats of endangered local species. Most critically, she noted the absence of required environmental impact statements that should have preceded the construction.  

Her conclusion was telling: "This order does nothing more than uphold the basic requirements of legislation designed to fulfil those promises." ⑥. Judge Williams is careful to position herself as a judge enforcing clear statutory obligations, not a political actor. The courts clearly fear overstepping and being seen as policymakers favouring instead to determine when procedural requirements have or have not been met. Environmental law’s dependence on quantitative measurements means it is unambiguous in comparison with human rights law where broader, qualitative judgements are required. 

Immigration law operates under the “plenary power doctrine,” which places enforcement policy under executive authority as a matter of national security rather than individual rights. In practise, this means courts tend to defer to the executive and legislative branches for decisions on detention preferring to refrain from making a political decision that qualifies what constitutes a national security threat. As a result, modern courts interpret constitutional protections for non-citizens narrowly, affording them fewer legal safeguards than citizens.  

Consequently, even well-documented abuses at Alligator Alcatraz struggle to meet the legal threshold for judicial intervention. Even if human rights lawsuits are successful and improved living conditions are secured, the underlying act of mass detention remains legally permissible at the discretion of the executive. 

Looking wider, this restraint on immigration enforcement conflicts with the United States’ constitutional commitment to equal protection and due process. In September 2025, the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on the Immigration and Customs ⑧ (ICE) operations in Los Angeles, California. They suspended lower court rulings that barred agents from conducting raids that targeted individuals based on race, language and location. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion declared that race (and other usually protected characteristics) could serve as a "relevant factor" when forming "reasonable suspicion" over a person's immigration status. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a forceful dissent, warned that the decision effectively legalised racial profiling and rendered Latinos "second-class citizens," writing that Americans should not "have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."  

This ruling clearly affects American citizens of Latino descent. People with supposedly full constitutional protections from racial discrimination can be unlawfully arrested under the grounds of “reasonable suspicion” based on the colour of their skin and the language they speak. These constitutional rights have been subordinated to immigration enforcement prerogatives. Why is it legally justifiable to allow such inhumane and discriminatory treatment of individuals but provide immediate injunctive relief to the Everglades?  It should be noted that Judge Williams' injunction did not survive appeal ⑨ on a technicality. As Florida had not yet received the full $608 million in federal reimbursement for the construction of Alligator Alcatraz, the facility did not constitute a “major federal action” capable of triggering NEPA compliance standards. The injunction was therefore lifted and operations have resumed with both the environmental and human-rights cases now proceeding without immediate relief.  

However, this is a temporary failure. Florida must now choose between accepting $608 million in federal funding ⑩, which would transform the facility into a major federal action subject to environmental review and potential shutdown, or maintain operational independence but forgo the reimbursement.  

Ultimately, environmental violations are proving more consequential than human rights. While this is deeply troubling, one could consider this a strategic opportunity with a historical precedent. During the Civil Rights Movement, participants used the Interstate Commerce Clause to desegregate public accommodations. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) ⑪ the Supreme Court ruled that restaurants and hotels could not discriminate against people based on ethnicity because it affected interstate commerce. The legal reasoning was unrelated to racial discrimination, but it delivered racial justice in a substantive sense.  

So, when constitutional protections are proven inadequate to protect human rights, an effective strategy could involve turning to laws with stricter quantifiable mandates. Injustice can be challenged, even if only by imposing constraints or increasing the cost for the administration buying time for broader political mobilisation against tyrannical authority. 

Sadly, the Trump administration plans to expand detention infrastructure rapidly. Florida is already constructing a second facility ⑫ to hold another 2,000 people with Indiana and Louisiana planning to follow suit. Future locations may not sit on protected lands or trigger environmental review. Environmental law alone cannot be a universal stopgap to address the underlying injustice of mass detention or restore the anti-discriminatory laws. 

The case of Alligator Alcatraz reveals a legal system with incredibly misaligned priorities. Courts are more willing to subordinate constitutional human rights in favour of strictly upholding environmental protections. The judiciary consciously chose not to extend robust protections to immigrants (and now Latino citizens). Courts must reconsider their role in protecting the people against the policies of mass detention. Until this changes, other avenues must be used to secure substantive justice.  

Sources

① Earthjustice «  Judge Halts Operations at Everglades Detention Center with Preliminary Injunction  », Earthjustice, 21 August 2025. 

② Al Jazeera Staff, « ‘Cops in the form of alligators’ : Trump visits Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz », Al Jazeera, 1 July 2025. 

③ Chelsea Bailey, Isabel Roasales & Alaa Elassar, « ‘Alligator Alcatraz’: What we know about Florida’s new controversial migrant detention facility », CNN, 13 July 2025. 

④ Josh Marcus, « Hunger Strike at Alligator Alcatraz reaches Day 9 as inmate protests conditions », The Independent, 1 August 2025. 

⑤ The Associated Press, « 'Alligator Alcatraz' immigrant detainees are held without charges and barred from legal access, lawyers say », NBC News, 28 July 2025. 

⑥ Yang Tian, « US judge orders shutdown of Trump’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention centre », BBC News, 22 August 2025. 

⑦ Peter Charalambous & Ely Brown, « Judge temporarily blocks further construction of ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention center », ABC News, 8 August 2025.  

⑧ American Immigration Council « How the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling During Immigration Raids », American Immigration Council, 9 September 2025 

⑨  Jude Sheerin, « ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ immigration centre can stay open, appeals court rules », BBC News, 5 September 2025 

⑩ Mike Schneider, « Feds approve Florida for a $608 million ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ reimbursement », AP News, 3 October 2025 

⑪ « Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States » Oyez, 1964  ⑫ Shannon Heffernan & Beth Schwartzapfel, « The Next Alligator Alcatraz Could Be in Your State », The Marshall Project, 22 August 2025.