Delaney Hall: A Crossroad for New Jersey Immigration Policy
Prior to the current tension between New Jersey and Federal Immigration Enforcement, the New Jersey State Assembly passed AB5207. The law prohibited local and private correctional facilities in the state from entering into agreements to detain noncitizens with federal authorities. The Democrat sponsored bill was an effort to foster support for New Jersey’s immigrant communities, comprising 2.25 million people, nearly ¼ of the NJ population. However, this local effort would counter the looming federal immigration agenda. Two years later, in 2023, the Federal District court sent its first flare of change to the state. The 3rd District court struck AB5207, allowing both government and private agencies to enter, renew, and extend contracts to private detention agencies to facilitate immigration detention procedures. Two years later, New Jersey communities find themselves in a constitutional crisis dealing with the ramifications of that decision. Starting in February of 2025, Federal Immigration & Customs Enforcement agreed to allow Geo Group Inc., a private correctional firm, to reopen Delaney Hall in Newark, NJ. Across from the Essex County Correctional Facility, Delaney Hall has a history in corrections, having been used as a housing center for various populations. This includes: incarcerated people released to reentry programs, defendants awaiting trial, and even as an immigration detention center, operated by Community Education Center until 2008, a firm with ties to local Essex County government. Nonetheless, the contract that Geo Group Inc. and the federal government agreed upon in 2025 sets the facility on an entirely new trajectory. The federal contract sets Geo Group Inc. up to earn over $60M annually, reopening and operating Delaney Hall as the largest immigration detention facility on the East Coast for the next 15 years. When the contract is up, the revenue generated will total over $1B for the private firm. The contract allows Geo Group Inc. to give ICE exclusive access to the hall, facilitating their detention procedures of migrants, to the ire of Newark officials. On a local level, operating the detention center in Newark, a major center of NJ’s immigrant population, streamlines the federal interest of “arresting, detaining, and removing illegal aliens from our communities.” With the facility now at the federal agency’s disposal, ICE can expand its presence in the state, increasing patrols, detainments, and deportations.
To better understand the capabilities at the disposal of Federal Immigration Enforcement, the regulations that govern immigration affairs must be clear. Under current immigration law, immigrants are governed by two separate legal codes depending on their immigration status. People living in the United States who are ineligible for a visa fall under the class of “Inadmissible Aliens,” and can be deported by federal immigration with or without any prior criminal proceedings. People living in the United States after being admitted and becoming Lawful Permanent Residents are governed by the “Deportable Aliens” code. Under the Grounds of Deportability outlined in U.S.C. § 1227, people considered Lawful Permanent Residents cannot be detained and deported by immigration enforcement without first being convicted of various charges, in either jurisdiction. This statute should protect people, preserving them from federal punishment until due process is served to the defendant during their criminal trial. According to accounts from immigration lawyers and investigators in Essex County’s Public Defender’s Office, the detention facility contradicts the Fifth Amendment protections to due process. There have been numerous defendants, of various immigration statuses, actively standing trial, whose cases have been disrupted by being detained and held in ICE custody at Delaney Hall. In some instances, the defendants have lost contact with their attorney and other vital judicial staff while in federal custody, bringing their local case to a complete halt. However, when analyzing the immigration code upheld by our Highest Court, it is clear why ICE has such extensive discretion over Amendment V procedures.
The detainment procedures considered admissible for immigrants have been highly debated throughout all federal courts. Under the Fifth Amendment, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” This broad protection is refused to all people considered non-US nationals during detainment regarding their removal procedures. The Supreme Court has affirmed the federal government and its agencies' discretion to “admit or exclude aliens” from these absolute rights entitled to natural citizens as their “sovereign prerogative.” Recent decisions structure these limited rights for both Lawful Residents and undocumented citizens. The landmark decision in Demore (2003) sets the court’s modern stance on detention for Residents convicted of crime. There, the court found detention necessary for removal procedures for those convicted of a deportable offense. Given this was the decision for “lawful permanent residents, the most favored category of people [aliens],” these same procedures apply to non-lawful residents. In this same opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist affirmed complete discretionary power to the executive regarding immigrant detention, allowing “no court to set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General regarding the detention or release of any person [alien].” Thus far, there have been many cases of immigrants detained indefinitely while their immigration cases are being settled. Further holdings from the Roberts Court only diminish immigrants' rights and grant greater power to the federal government. This has included granting Federal Immigration Enforcement the ability to deny Inadmissible immigrants periodic bond hearings during their detention, even in the case their detention exceeds six months, and limit their access to habeas review during removal proceedings.
With the estimated 1,000-bed detention center opening, New Jersey Democrats have been outspoken in their criticism of its operation. Newark mayor Ras Baraka stated plainly that Delaney Hall is a Constitutional issue, “about human rights and respect for due process.” These criticisms have escalated, resulting in arrests of protesting state Democrats, including the mayor, along with Congressional representatives Robert Menendez Jr. and Bonnie Watson Coleman, for their involvement in local protests of Delaney Hall in May. Now a tense federalist issue, with a suit filed from municipal offices and Geo Group Inc., the time has come to assess and prepare for the impact the verdict will have. The City of Newark filed a complaint against Geo Group Inc. in the state Superior Court. Geo Group Inc. subsequently removed the filing to the 3rd Circuit District Court of New Jersey. Through both suits, the City of Newark seeks a court order granting its officials access to Delaney Hall. This would defy the federal contract Geo Group agreed to, which “grants ICE the exclusive use of the facility” and “requires ICE to approve all requests for access to secure portions of the facility,” isolating the hall to federal use. In response to the suit, Geo Group Inc. motioned to join ICE as a necessary party to both agencies' procedures, and have the case dismissed with prejudice, “pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” If the courts were to allow this, under Rule 19(a), ICE would be deemed a required party to Geo Group Inc.’s private migrant procedures. The City of Newark’s suit threatens both parties’ contractual obligations, and would be unable to seek relief from Geo Group Inc., forcing the courts to join the two parties in the suit. In the case the suit was dismissed, the courts then would have decided ICE cannot be joined in the suit in equity and good conscience, granting both parties immunity and denying Newark officials access.
No matter which side the court’s decision favors, the precedent the court sets may not restore the trampled-upon Fifth Amendment Rights given to immigrants. The obvious bleak outcome would see the court grant Geo Group’s dismissal. That decision could reasonably grant ICE immunity from any state or local suits looking to gain access to local facilities operated by federal agencies. Henceforth, violations committed by ICE would be given similar immunity, with oversight of those violations vested solely in the immigration agency itself. Despite this, if the decision were to favor the Newark officials, the outcome for lawful residents of this country could be equally disturbing. In their own rhetoric, Democrats are adamant in impeding and ultimately terminating the use of Delaney Hall as a detention center. Prima facie, this seems to support immigrants, but may not account for the full consequences that closing the center will have. Closing Delaney Hall does not remove ICE patrol from New Jersey nor prevent ICE from detaining New Jersey’s lawful residents in Essex County. Rather than maintain their detention in-house, detained immigrants now must overcome county and state lines to keep contact with the community they are torn from. This may only further due process violations, as judicial staff must address additional external offices to resolve a defendant’s legal matters. Even in the case that the City of Newark’s suit stands, the fragmentation of the detention process may push residents further from legal support and their homes. These additional hurdles will only extend a person's time in detention, providing no relief to the constitutional violations they face.
What started with the State Assembly’s local effort to prevent private immigration detention procedures has evolved into a legal and political standoff for greater authority. But Delaney Hall represents more than a detention center. Delaney Hall symbolizes conflict between state and federal, security and liberty, sovereignty and rights. And as the 3rd Circuit Court stands at the crossroads of this conflict, we find ourselves standing by their side, bracing for their answer to the question: who holds the power to decide the fate of immigrants within our borders, and at what cost to the constitutional values we claim we uphold?
References [1] 8 U.S.C. § 1182 - Inadmissible Aliens [2] 8 U.S.C. § 1227 - Deportable Aliens [3] City of Newark v. Geo Re-Entry Group, LLC et al, 2:2025cv02225 [4] CoreCivic Inc. v. Murphy, 690 F. Supp. 3d 467, 493 (D.N.J. 2023) [5] Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) [6] Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S.___ (2020) [7] Dolnick, S. (2011). Company With Political Ties Is Sole Bidder on Jail Contract—(p 25) The New York Times. [8] Dolnick, S. (2012). 1,200-Bed Halfway House in Newark Is Operating Illegally, Suit Says. (p.1-3) The New York Times. [9] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 12. Defenses and Objections [10] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties [11] How Delaney Hall, New Jersey's controversial new immigration detention center, opened in early May, operates. (2025). CE Noticias Financieras. [12] Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S.___ (2018) [13] Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) [14] Members of Congress break into Delaney Hall Detention Center: Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). [15] Nieto-Munoz, S., & Torres, A. (2025, February 27). ICE plans massive new immigrant detention center in Newark • New Jersey Monitor. New Jersey Monitor. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/02/27/ice-plans-massive-new-immigrant-detention-center-in-newark/ [16] Press Release: The GEO Group Awarded 15-Year Contract by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for Company-Owned, 1,000-Bed Delaney Hall Facility in New Jersey. (2025). Dow Jones Institutional News.
Participants:
Written by Joseph Reyes
Edited by Isabella Terracina
