Stand Your Ground: Environmental Advocates Fights Alligator Alcatraz for NEPA Violations
By Matthew Allen

On June 27, 2025, two nonprofit organizations filed suit against state and federal agencies and officials for violations under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[1] This suit arises from the construction of Alligator Alcatraz, an immigration detention center located in southern Florida. Friends of the Everglades (Friends) and Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) complaint argues that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to complete necessary environmental review before undergoing construction.[2] NEPA promotes efforts to prevent damage to the environment while encouraging productive harmony between man and the environment.[3] Additionally, NEPA requires completion of a necessary report illustrating foreseeable environmental effects based off the proposed action.[4] Filed in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kathleen Williams ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, clinching a pivotal ruling for environmental groups.

Under federal orders, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) took control of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport (TNT).[5] FDEM altered TNT into a mass migrant detention and deportation camp.[6] This federal order, along with construction activities, took place in less than an eight-day span.[7] Friends and CBD interpleaded because of the sensitive location of TNT. The TNT is located within the Big Cypress National Preserve,[8] designated as “an area of critical concern.”[9] Further, TNT is located near the Everglades National Park and historic Everglades. The state legislature established the Big Cypress Area to protect the natural resources and beauty of Florida.[10] Construction of a detention center within this area creates risk of harming local wetlands, wildlife, as well as air and water quality.[11] Due to this threat, the Miccosukee Indian Tribe of Florida (Miccosukee Tribe) intervened as plaintiffs.[12] The Miccosukee Tribe has strong ties to the land and the construction of Alligator Alcatraz poses a significant threat to their food and water supply.[13] The suit requested injunctive relief to stop construction further than what had already been completed.

On August 21, 2025, the District Court ruled in favor of Friends, CBD, and Miccosukee Tribe, finding construction of Alligator Alcatraz violated NEPA standards.[14] Friends and CBD indicated this is a “landmark victory” for those who believe the environment should be protected.[15] NEPA, enacted in 1970, establishes a system for state and federal agencies to find the most beneficial uses of the environment without degradation.[16] Prior to the construction of federal buildings, an environmental impact report must be completed.[17] This report provides reasonably foreseeable effects, elements that could not be avoided, a range of alternatives including negative impacts, and short-to-long term property uses.[18] It is the responsibility of the federal agency to ensure the integrity of scientific discussion and analysis within the assessment.[19] Without this necessary analysis, it is a guessing game how construction of certain facilities can impact the environment.

As the court reviewed the Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants failed to establish compelling arguments as to why they did not complete the necessary reports. The possible environmental impacts of this facility are subject to federal control, whereas the Defendant’s argue that Alligator Alcatraz is strictly a state project.[20] The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants failed to “obtain critical information of the TNT site . . . failure to obtain critical information from the site’s owner . . . and process regarding the facilities construction and operations.”[21] Overall, the Plaintiffs’ argument stems from a lack of accountability and proper procedural steps not completed by the Defendants.[22] The District Court agreed with multiple aspects of the Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim.

NEPA provides clear instructions to which documents are necessary prior to construction of a facility like Alligator Alcatraz.[23] The Plaintiffs argue that this is a project comprised of “systematic and connected agency decisions.”[24] NEPA requires coordination between state and federal agencies, especially for a federally funded project taking place within a specific state jurisdiction.[25] NEPA requires that any “major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” be preceded by an environmental impact statement (EIS) to balance impacts of objectives and benefits.[26] A NEPA claim requires the Plaintiff to show that construction of the facility involves (1) a final agency action, (2) a major federal action, and (3) without Defendants conducting a compliant EIS.[27] The District Court capitalizes on the Defendant’s argument that Alligator Alcatraz is not the embodiment of federal issues, therefore NEPA is not the supervising authority. The District Court is not fooled by this argument. Testimony and evidence provided by the Plaintiffs show the facility is operated under a federal agency, funded by federal money, and ultimately deals with federal issues.[28]

Finally, the District Court looks towards potential irreparable injuries to be suffered from the NEPA violation.[29] An injury is irreparable only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.[30] The Plaintiffs back their argument with notions of potentially damaged wetlands, endangered species, runoff and water discharge, light, noise, and traffic issues.[31] Plaintiffs provide an extensive amount of support for these notions. Construction of 800,000 square feet of paved area, fencing, lighting, noise, fueling systems, and car traffic will create substantial and irreparable harm to the area.[32] The Defendants attempt to say that all these issues balance out with equity and public interest. Balance of equities and public interest must be weighed when granting preliminary injunctive relief.[33] Immigration is a significant national interest. The Defendants attempt to “humanize” this ongoing issue by stating “as the swell of people seeking refuge and opportunities in our nation steadily increases, the government is under a corresponding pressure to respond and regulate.”[34] What their argument fails to address, is the lack of awareness to NEPA protocols. While the court recognizes that there is public interest, it does not outweigh the evidence provided by the Plaintiffs.[35]

Although there will certainly be an appeal, the masterclass the Southern District of Florida approach provided is exceptional. In difficult times when environmental laws are overlooked for government efficiency, now more than ever it is necessary to step up. The holding by Judge Williams shuts down any notion for the Defendants to skirt by. NEPA will always stand as the foundational point for environmental law. With this ruling, it provides environmental advocates hope for a push for conservation over quick development. The Defendant’s irrational judgment will hopefully prove as a lesson learned: that no matter the public policy being pushed, there are necessary environmental guidelines.

[1] Complaint at 2, Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2025) (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[2] Id.

[3] See 42 U.S.C. § 4321.

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(i).

[5] Complaint, Friends of the Everglades, (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Fla. Stat. § 380.055(3).

[10] Fla. Stat. § 380.055(2).

[11] Complaint at 2, Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2025) (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[12] Id. at 3.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 2.

[15] Mitch Perry, Federal Judge Halts Operations at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’, Maine Morning Star, (Aug. 22, 2025) https://mainemorningstar.com/2025/08/22/federal-judge-halts-operations-at-alligator-alcatraz/.

[16] 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3).

[17] 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii).

[18] See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(i–iii).

[19] 42 U.S.C. § 4332(D).

[20] Complaint at 2, Friends of the Everglades (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 17.

[23] 42 U.S.C. § 4321.

[24] Complaint at 2, Friends of the Everglades (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[25] 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3).

[26] 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).

[27] Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008).

[28] Complaint at 26–29, Friends of the Everglades, (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[29] Id. at 28.

[30] Ferro v. Assoc. Materials Inc., 923 F.2d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir. 1991).

[31] Complaint at 26–29, Friends of the Everglades, (No. 1:25-cv-22896).

[32] Id. at 29–30.

[33] Id. at 32.

[34] Id.

[35] Id.