The Federal Trepass
Introduction The federal government can enforce federal law nationwide. But what if it wants to build a federal facility on land that a state objects to?
That issue is playing out in Northern California, where the federal government proposes to build an immigration holding facility near Gilroy, California. That facility, which could hold up to 150 detainees, faces legal challenges from California and Santa Clara County. A federal judge has indicated that she is likely to temporarily halt the project, which was undertaken, in the plaintiffs’ view, without the required environmental review or consultation.¹
The dispute touches on a larger constitutional issue: How far does federal power extend when it intersects with a state’s authority over land use, environmental regulation, and local government?
Federal Power Is Not Bound by State Borders
The Constitution provides several powers that the federal government exercises across the country. Immigration enforcement has traditionally been a federal responsibility, and federal law generally prevails over conflicting state laws by the Supremacy Clause.
States may not simply prohibit federal officials from carrying out federal functions because they disagree with the policy.
The Supreme Court established the basic federalism framework in McCulloch v. Maryland, holding that states could not impede valid federal operations.³ The decision set the foundation for modern federalism: in general, states may not frustrate the federal government simply by disapproving of its actions.
It does not follow, however, that every federal project is automatically exempt from state law. The federal government has to identify what law authorizes what it proposes to do.
The Environmental Question
The dispute in California turns largely on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This statute generally requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental consequences of major federal actions before proceeding.⁴ It does not necessarily prohibit damaging projects – but it does add a procedural layer: agencies must consider environmental consequences in making these decisions.
California and Santa Clara County claim that federal officials leased the Gilroy area property and already initiated planning for the facility, without completing the environmental review they claim the federal law requires.⁵
The federal government disputes the legal challenge and has been urging the judge to let the construction proceed despite the judge’s initial indications that she may issue a preliminary injunction.⁶
Thus, the dispute serves as an illustration of an important feature of modern federalism: that states do not have to win a direct fight over a policy to challenge a federal action. They sometimes can challenge the process.
Property Is Not Sovereignty
The dispute also involves a different constitutional point over the authority to deal with property. The Constitution’s Property Clause provides the Congress with broad powers over property belonging to the United States.⁷ That power can be considerable, especially in federal land.
But being “owned” by the federal government has limits. Private landowners have to comply with zoning, environmental statutes, building requirements, and other laws. Federal ownership of a particular parcel often changes the relevant rules, especially when Congress has explicitly preempted state regulation, but calling a facility a federal project is not always an answer.
The constitutional debate becomes more precise: Which law authorizes the project, what procedures does that law require, and which state rules (if any) apply?
The Limits of State Resistance
States have several big interests of their own. They regulate land use, protect natural resources, and operate local governments and enforce their own laws. The Constitution does not make states branches of the federal government.
At the same time, federalism does not give states a general veto over federal operations. The anti-commandeering principle bars the federal government from forcing states to administer federal programs, but it does not usually prevent the federal government from doing its own thing.⁸
This contrast creates an unusual balance. California cannot order federal officials to abandon a legitimate federal program just because the state does not like it – but the state can fight the federal action when it believes the government has exceeded statutory authority or violated procedural requirements. Federal supremacy is not the same thing as federal immunity from law.
Why It Matters
The dispute in the Northern California region can serve as a reminder of how modern federalism actually works. The Constitution draws a boundary between governments but it rarely looks that clear-cut in practice. A single facility can involve federal immigration authority, the federal spending power, federal environmental law, state regulation, county interests, and judicial challenges.
This complexity can cause the federal government to slow down. It can also make the federal government more accountable.
Before building a major facility, the legal system can hold up the process to force the government to explain where its authority comes from, what procedures it is following, and whether the affected governments and communities were entitled to participate. These requirements do not necessarily stop federal action, but they set the conditions in which the federal government can legitimately act.
Conclusion
The federal government has wide powers to enforce federal law. States have great authority over their governments and territories. Neither always outweighs the other. The Northern California detention center dispute, then, may be seen not merely as a dispute over a single facility but as a test of the larger constitutional arrangements regarding a federal system and national power. The federal government may have the authority to act, but the authority to act is not the same as the exemption from being held to the law.
The federal government may have the capacity to cross state lines. But it does not cross them out of the law.
Santa Clara County v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 5:26-cv-00560 (N.D. Cal. filed June 2026). The litigation concerns the proposed immigration holding facility near Gilroy, California. Judge Eumi K. Lee issued tentative ruling indicating her likely to grant a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs’ NEPA claim.
U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347.
Santa Clara County v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 5:26-cv-00560.
Bloomberg Law, “DOJ Urges Judge to Allow Planned California ICE Detention Center,” Sept. 9, 2026.
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997); Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).
Comments