UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy

This Comment looks at the ways in which environmental law can be used to both delay the opening of new immigration detention centers and shut down existing centers. This Comment is not advocating for unhousing undocumented folks, nor is it advocating for NIMBYist exclusion by white communities. At its core, the detention of migrants is wrong. The separation of families is wrong. Profiting off other people’s pain is wrong. Although this Comment discusses environmental law as an avenue of resistance, this Comment is part of a movement that asks for a complete reorganization and abolition of the United States’ current immigration system. Additionally, although this piece primarily highlights legal strategies, it is important to recognize the hard work of the advocates on the ground, who are protesting and taking direct action against detention centers and prisons. All the cases discussed below were the result of the combined labor of direct action and legal challenges. Failure to acknowledge these efforts would be unfair to the priceless work of organizers and activists.

Part I discusses a variety of statutes and common law remedies that can delay the opening of new detention centers, close existing detention centers, or provide more information regarding detention center inadequacies, violations, and negligence. These statutes include the Freedom of Information Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and environmental torts (negligence). Part II provides solutions and alternatives to our current immigration detention system. This Part discusses the importance of addressing the root causes of immigration and emigration by acknowledging the United States’ role in migration, and the viability of holistic community-based programs.