The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has purchased two privately-run immigrant detention centers in California for $1.5 billion, according to a statement from CoreCivic, the private prison company that sold the facilities. The sale, finalized on July 2, includes the 2,560-bed California City Detention Facility and the 1,994-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego. CoreCivic will continue operating both facilities under existing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), though the terms could be modified due to the ownership change.
DHS cited California's sanctuary policies as a reason for the purchase, stating that the state's restrictions on private prisons made it difficult for ICE to rely on local detention space. The agency emphasized that federal ownership ensures continued capacity for arresting, detaining, and removing undocumented immigrants. The purchase was funded by President Donald Trump's spending bill, which allocated $170 billion to DHS.
Legal and Oversight Concerns
Critics argue the purchase may shield the facilities from state oversight and legal challenges. California law requires privately held detention centers to be subject to local and state monitoring, but federal ownership could override those regulations. Civil rights attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center called the move a potential attempt to evade accountability.
CoreCivic, meanwhile, defended the sale as a standard business transaction, noting that the valuation was determined through an independent federal appraisal process. The company expects net proceeds of about $1.1 billion after taxes and expenses.
Contract and Future Operations
The contracts for the facilities expire in August 2027 for California City and December 2029 for Otay Mesa, with options for five-year extensions. DHS has not yet indicated whether it will renew the contracts or take over operations directly.
The purchase comes amid broader debates over immigration enforcement and the role of private prisons in detention. While DHS frames the move as necessary for maintaining deportation capacity, opponents see it as a way to bypass state regulations and avoid legal scrutiny.