County Fight Active-Litigation

San Diego County CA — County Sues ICE Over Blocked Otay Mesa Health Inspection

San Diego, CA FIPS 06073

Current status: San Diego County sued ICE on March 10, 2026 after federal agents blocked a county public health inspection on February 20, 2026. ICE initially cleared inspectors then reversed upon arrival. The county invokes a 2024 California law granting public health officers authority to inspect private immigration detention. Case pending in federal court.

The Fight

San Diego County filed suit in federal court on March 10, 2026, after ICE blocked the county’s public health officer from inspecting the Otay Mesa Detention Center — a CoreCivic facility that has been the site of sustained complaints about freezing temperatures, medical neglect, and contaminated food. The lawsuit marks an unusual escalation: a county government invoking a state health law to assert oversight authority directly against a federal agency.

This is a distinct fight from earlier ACLU/detainee conditions litigation at Otay Mesa. This case turns on the threshold question of inspection access itself — whether California counties have the legal right to walk through the door at all.

What Happened

On February 20, 2026, San Diego County Public Health Officer Dr. Sayone Thihalolipavan arrived at Otay Mesa to conduct an inspection authorized under 2024 California law, which explicitly grants county public health officers the power to inspect private immigration detention facilities for health and safety compliance. ICE had initially confirmed the inspection. When Dr. Thihalolipavan and county officials arrived at the facility, ICE agents reversed the clearance and turned them away at the gate.

County Counsel Damon Brown said the federal government’s refusal violates the Administrative Procedure Act because officials gave no lawful explanation for blocking a state-authorized inspection. DHS countered that the county failed to provide seven days’ notice to ICE — a procedural objection the county disputes.

The lawsuit names the County of San Diego, Public Health Officer Dr. Thihalolipavan, and County Counsel Damon Brown as plaintiffs.

What Prompted the Inspection

County officials cited “alarming reports from inside the facility,” including detainee accounts of:

Freezing temperatures in housing units
Untreated medical conditions
Food unfit for human consumption

These conditions mirror findings at other CoreCivic facilities in the Southern District, including California City (see related entry).

Legal Theory

The county’s legal argument is straightforward: the 2024 California inspection law creates a state-law obligation on private detention operators and confers inspection authority on county public health officers. The APA claim asserts that ICE’s reversal was arbitrary and capricious — agency action without a lawful explanation. If the court accepts the county’s theory, it would establish a precedent that California counties can enforce state health inspection mandates even against facilities operating under federal contracts.

Timeline

2026-02-20: Public Health Officer Dr. Thihalolipavan arrives at Otay Mesa — ICE reverses clearance, turns inspection team away
2026-03-04: San Diego County announces intent to sue
2026-03-10: County files federal lawsuit against ICE/DHS
2026 (ongoing): Case pending

Key Actors

Dr. Sayone Thihalolipavan: San Diego County Public Health Officer; named plaintiff
Damon Brown: San Diego County Counsel; named plaintiff; articulated APA legal theory
San Diego County Board of Supervisors: Authorized the lawsuit
CoreCivic: Facility operator (not the direct defendant, but the entity refusing entry)
ICE/DHS: Defendants

Why This Fight Matters

Otay Mesa is one of CoreCivic’s highest-profile facilities — and one of the most scrutinized for conditions abuses. The 2024 California inspection law was specifically designed to create an accountability mechanism that couldn’t be blocked by the federal contract shield. ICE’s reversal upon the inspectors’ arrival — after initially clearing them — is a stark demonstration that the agency views even state-law health oversight as negotiable. The county’s willingness to file suit, rather than accept the rebuff, tests whether California’s inspection framework has real teeth or is merely aspirational.

Sources

This research is published at The RAMM — investigative reporting on the detention pipeline.

Edit Report issue County profile Add a tip about this fight