Decisions

11th Cir. April 21, 2026

The appeal concerned the same Florida facility, built by the State of Florida in the Everglades to assist federal immigration enforcement. The court framed the question in its opening line: “This appeal requires us to decide if the National Environmental Policy Act governs a facility constructed by the State of Florida to assist in federal immigration enforcement.” The district court had ordered the site closed and dismantled. An earlier panel of the same court stayed that injunction in September 2025. On the merits the court held that the challengers had not shown either a final agency action or the degree of federal control that would bring the facility within the statute, because Florida had built it with state funds, state employees and state property and had retained control of construction decisions. The holding, in the court’s own words: “Because the environmentalists and Tribe failed to prove either a final agency action or federal control, and because the injunction, in part, violates a statutory prohibition of enjoining immigration enforcement, we vacate and remand.” Disposition: “We VACATE the preliminary injunction and REMAND for further proceedings.” The second ground was that the part of the injunction preventing federal officers from bringing people to the facility ran against the statutory bar on enjoining the operation of the immigration removal provisions, 8 U.S.C. section 1252(f)(1). Judge Abudu dissented, closing: “the majority’s decision to vacate the district court’s order is just plain wrong. I dissent.”

National Environmental Policy Act Final agency action Federal control Injunctions against immigration enforcement Section 1252(f)(1) Conditions of detention

Caution The challengers lost. Any account describing this case only as an environmental challenge to the facility, without saying that the injunction was vacated, is incomplete. The decision is about environmental review and the reach of a jurisdictional bar. It makes no finding about conditions inside the facility and no finding about the treatment of anyone held there. A reporter citation, 174 F.4th 822, is in circulation. The decision is marked for publication and will receive a citation in due course, but the Coalition has not been able to verify that one and does not reproduce it. The earlier order staying the district court’s injunction is reported at 2025 WL 2598567 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025), Jordan, Circuit Judge, dissenting. That citation is quoted inside the April 2026 opinion.

6th Cir. December 20, 2018 912 F.3d 869 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

Reversing, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over the removal-based claims and that § 1252(f)(1) barred the class-wide injunction on the detention-based claims. It vacated both preliminary injunctions and remanded with directions to dismiss the removal-based claims. Judge White dissented, and would have held that the District Court had jurisdiction. The panel described the case as arising from “the government’s efforts to execute long-standing final removal orders of Iraqi nationals that the United States had, for many years, been unable to execute.”

Jurisdiction stripping Section 1252(g) Section 1252(f)(1) Class-wide injunctive relief Suspension Clause Habeas Preliminary injunction vacated Contrary authority

Caution Contrary authority, and controlling in the Sixth Circuit. It vacated the 24 July 2017 injunction recorded separately in this collection. The panel ruled on jurisdiction and on the form of relief; the lawfulness of the removals themselves, and the process due before an order of supervision is revoked, were not before it. The opinion was first filed unpublished on 20 December 2018 and designated for full-text publication the following day, which is why some sources date it 21 December.