A federal court has foiled state plans to circumvent national immigration enforcement, following a push to end the use of detention centers with a July 22 decision.
News broke this week that a federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey’s ban on the use of private immigration detention contracts is unconstitutional, as Fox News reported.
This is a big blow to advocates for illegal immigration who have been trying to diminish the impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Garden State.
The court’s decision pertained to a 2021 law signed by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, which barred the company CoreCivic from engaging in a contract with ICE.
The contract would have allowed for ICE, which is a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to operate its Elizabeth Detention Center.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, weighed in, saying, ”Just as states cannot regulate the federal government itself, they cannot regulate private parties in a way that severely undercuts a federal function.
The judge added that the law "interferes with the federal government’s core power to enforce immigration laws."
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin was not pleased with the circuit court decision and expressed his frustration on X, formerly Twitter.
“We are disappointed in the Third Circuit’s ruling this morning invalidating our law prohibiting private immigration detention.
Near the end of his comments, he promised that the state wasn’t done with the issue, saying, “We will continue to do all we can to defend these important goals and are evaluating our next steps in this case.”
Statement from Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin on the Third Circuit’s Decision in CoreCivic. pic.twitter.com/d0zh3Tru9l
— Attorney General Matt Platkin (@NewJerseyOAG) July 22, 2025
The decision from the 3rd Circuit was a split 2-1 decision, and the attorney general cited one concern from the dissenting judge in his comments:
“As recent events at Delaney Hall underscore, entrusting detention to for-profit companies poses a grave risk to health and safety, and as the dissenting judge noted, states retain broad latitude to protect the health and safety of people within their borders, particularly where, as here, there is no conflict with federal legislation,” Platkin said.
This is at sharp odds with the assertion by DHS and the Trump administration that the removal of illegal immigrants, who entered the nation in violation of current laws or overstayed without proper documentation, is part of their duty and required by federal legislation.
