Home/ Fights/ Roxbury NJ — Governor, AG, and Township Sue to Block ICE Processing Center
County Fight Litigation

Roxbury NJ — Governor, AG, and Township Sue to Block ICE Processing Center

Morris, NJ FIPS 34027
Current status: Active litigation. Preliminary injunction hearing set May 12, 2026 before Judge Semper (D.N.J.). Environmental coalition brief filed April 14. Federal government arguing ICE needs site for NYC-area cases and seeking to allow renovation work to proceed pending ruling.

ICE purchased a 470,000 sq ft warehouse in Roxbury Township, Morris County for $129.3 million (see roxbury-nj-warehouse). The Governor, Attorney General, and Township all filed suit to block the conversion. Community group No Ice North Jersey Alliance (Project NINJA) grew to 1,500+ members on email list and 700 on Facebook.

Timeline

  • January 14, 2026: NJ Democrats demand ICE cease plans for Roxbury
  • February 4, 2026: Bipartisan backlash erupts; all-Republican Roxbury Township Council passes resolution “unequivocally opposing” ICE plans
  • February 19, 2026: DHS closes on warehouse purchase ($129.3M)
  • February 26, 2026: Senators Kim and Booker push federal bill to stop warehouse-to-detention conversions
  • February 27, 2026: Governor Sherrill vows state action
  • March 20, 2026: Governor Sherrill, AG Davenport, and Roxbury Township jointly sue ICE/DHS
  • April 7, 2026: State files for preliminary injunction, arguing feds ignored environmental impact and local resource assessment requirements
  • April 14, 2026: Coalition of 10 environmental groups files amicus brief supporting the injunction, arguing the facility would generate 187,000+ gallons of sewage daily, threaten 74 acres of wetland habitat, increase pollution in a protected watershed, and violate NEPA environmental review requirements. NJ League of Conservation Voters: “Moving forward…without fully accounting for environmental and infrastructure impacts is reckless.”
  • April 2026: Federal (Trump) attorneys argue ICE needs the NJ warehouse specifically to handle NYC-area immigration cases and ask court to deny injunction so renovation work (security cameras, fencing, lighting, roof repairs) can proceed
  • May 6, 2026: NJ Solicitor General Shankar Duraiswamy files reply memorandum in support of preliminary injunction motion alongside Naima Drecker-Waxman declaration. Plaintiffs request emergency two-hour depositions of DHS officials DeGregorio and Byers before the May 12 hearing, characterizing DHS’s account as having “zig-zagged over the past two months.” DHS opposes depositions. Plaintiffs offer to drop the injunction motion if DHS commits in writing to defer all construction — including interior demolition — pending completion of environmental review. Brief flags DHS declarations describing work as “mainly drywall demolition” as language signaling “undisclosed additional activity.” Township engineer’s declaration: local water system would be overwhelmed “even if the facility had no staff and only 323 detainees.”
  • May 12, 2026 (scheduled): Preliminary injunction hearing before District Judge Jamel K. Semper in Newark federal court (Case No. 26-02884 (JKS) (JBC))

The DHS Account Inconsistency

Plaintiffs’ May 6 reply documents the inconsistency in DHS’s representations to the court:

  • March 10, 2026: DHS told Roxbury officials it would award a construction contract by month’s end and achieve full operational status within 90 days
  • March 30, 2026: DHS counsel emailed that no construction would begin before May 28 at earliest, with site activity limited to basic maintenance and security

Solicitor General Duraiswamy: “Only a compelled deposition will enable Plaintiffs and the Court to assess the factual basis for DHS’s argument.” DHS had not responded to “multiple inquiries” seeking clarity.

NEPA Argument

The legal core of the case is the NEPA categorical-exclusion question. DHS approved the environmental review on February 24, 2026 and closed on the property the next day. The review was conducted by Solv LLC under a $1.7 million contract with ICE’s facilities management office; signed February 6, 2026.

DHS argues that retrofitting an existing building does not require the same environmental scrutiny as new construction. Plaintiffs argue that acquisition and planned operations constitute a single project requiring pre-purchase environmental analysis under NEPA.

Pattern Across States

The Roxbury case is one of multiple state-level challenges to the DHS warehouse-conversion strategy on NEPA grounds. Maryland obtained the first preliminary injunction in this line on April 15, 2026 (State of Maryland v. ICE et al., U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson, D. Md.). Hurson found that “the State has shown that Defendants likely failed to comply with their obligations under NEPA” and that DHS did not appear to have taken “a ‘hard look’ at the potential environmental consequences” of the planned 542-detainee facility in an 800,000-square-foot warehouse near Williamsport. The court enjoined retrofitting and full construction; permitted only security installation, perimeter fencing, office drywall, HVAC repair, and roof work pending litigation. The KVG LLC contract for the Williamsport conversion was stopped (per Em Knepp / Project Saltbox April 2026 procurement analysis).

The 542 / 1,500 capacity split appears in both states. Maryland: per CBS Baltimore reporting on the Hurson ruling, the government’s planned capacity was 542 detainees, but court documents suggested up to 1,500 was possible. Hurson, on the gap: “How can you say with a straight face that four toilets is the same as with 542?” New Jersey: same 542 official-capacity number in the legal filings; same 1,500 figure in earlier press coverage of operational density. This is not a facility-specific quirk. The pattern of legal-filing capacity that systematically understates operational design appears to be DHS’s standard approach to warehouse-conversion litigation across states.

Michigan and Arizona have parallel pending challenges (per Wriston / Project Saltbox May 6, 2026 reporting); both cases warrant their own fight entries. Filed as cascade-research follow-ups.

What Makes This Fight Different

Roxbury has the broadest coalition of legal opposition of any facility fight: state governor + state AG + local township government all filing suit, backed by a large organized community group. This is the model of unified multi-level opposition.

The bipartisan character is exceptional: an all-Republican township council fighting alongside a Democratic governor. 500+ residents protested. Republican Mayor Shawn Potillo led local opposition. Key organizers include Tom Kelleher (Mount Olive/Roxbury Visibility Brigade, connected to ICE Warehouse Resistance Network) and William Angus (No ICE Northern Jersey Alliance).

The facility was described as having only four toilets for up to 1,500 detainees — “a logistics center fit for Amazon Prime packages, not people.”

Capacity numbers. Roxbury’s contractual capacity per the May 2026 legal filings is 542 detainees. Earlier press coverage cited 1,500 as the operational density envisioned for the building; this number is not in the operative legal filings and may reflect outside characterization rather than DHS’s own target.

The legal-filing number understates what the facility is likely to actually hold. Per TRAC analysis of nationwide ICE data, 84 of 181 facilities exceeded their contractual capacity on at least one day during October 2024 to mid-April 2025. Krome (Miami) held 1,806 people in a 611-capacity facility — nearly 3x — for at least one night in fiscal year 2025. Pine Prairie TX held 400+ above contracted specification. Mesa AROCC held 40-50 people in rooms posted at max 21. Whatever number ends up in the contract for Roxbury, the operational reality at peer facilities is overcrowding above the contractual figure.

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
Last updated: May 8, 2026