145 F.4th 315
3d Cir.2025Background
- In 2021, New Jersey enacted AB 5207, prohibiting state, local, and private entities from entering into or renewing contracts for civil immigration detention within the state.
- CoreCivic, the operator of New Jersey’s only private immigration detention facility, challenged AB 5207, arguing it violated the Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement discretion.
- The federal government relies on private detention contracts—like CoreCivic’s—to carry out its authority to detain noncitizens.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for CoreCivic, finding New Jersey’s law both violated intergovernmental immunity and was preempted by federal law; New Jersey appealed.
- On appeal, amici from both states and public interest groups weighed in on both sides. The United States joined CoreCivic’s side as amicus, emphasizing the facility’s operational necessity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AB 5207 violate intergovernmental immunity? | Law functionally bars federal immigration contracts and restricts federal discretion. | Law only applies to private actors; does not directly regulate or discriminate against U.S. | Yes; functionally bans a core federal contract and therefore directly regulates the government. |
| Direct vs. Indirect Regulation | Substance, not mere form, matters if law cripples federal operation. | Only direct application to U.S. counts, not effects on private parties. | Court follows functional approach: effective interference matters, not formal labels. |
| Is the law preempted by federal immigration statutes? | Federal law gives U.S. exclusive discretion over immigration detention contracts. | Statute does not require private detention or prohibit state regulation; just grants discretion. | Court found violation via immunity, did not decide preemption. |
| Scope of ruling | Immunity should protect key federal functions from novel state intrusion. | Expanding immunity undermines federalism; only Congress should override state laws idiosyncratically. | Holding limited to a market where U.S. is sole buyer for a core federal function. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (established the principle that states may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) (discusses scope of intergovernmental immunity and distinction between direct and incidental burdens)
- Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm’n, 318 U.S. 261 (1943) (state regulations affecting federal suppliers do not necessarily offend the Supremacy Clause if not directly applied)
- United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (1982) (immunity for private contractors only when they are so integrated they are not realistically distinct from the government)
- Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal. v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 (1958) (state cannot require approval of federal procurement contracts if it impedes federal discretion)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (preemption in the immigration context; federal law occupies the field for immigration enforcement)