Immigration and Customs Enforcement finalized the purchase of a 520,000-square-foot warehouse in Pennsylvania (Berks County) in February 2026.
The agency paid US$87 million for the warehouse, intended for development into a detention center.
Currently, there are roughly 220 facilities being used to detain immigrants nationwide. The detention funding provided to ICE – $3.4 billion in the most recent budget for the Department of Homeland Security – has historically been spent on contracts with detention providers.
The “ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative,” a 2026 initiative by ICE to overhaul its detention system, aims to transform 24 large, vacant warehouses into immigration detention facilities.
The plan calls for 16 regional processing centers, each designed to hold hundreds of detainees, and eight larger facilities with significantly greater capacity.
ICE is relying almost entirely on private contractors to rapidly expand detention capacity nationwide.
These contracts, backed by a $45 billion congressional budget, give private prison contractors a significant amount of revenue for use of these facilities.
Warehouses already slated for conversion have been identified in Surprise, Arizona; Social Circle, Georgia; Hagerstown, Maryland; Romulus, Michigan; Trenton, New Jersey; Schuylkill, Pennsylvania; and Socorro, Texas, among other locations.
I’m a professor of law at the University of Dayton. My research focuses on federal and state constitutional law, international law, property law and legal theory.
As ICE expands its detention infrastructure under new federal funding, communities across the country are discovering that their legal tools to push back are limited. According to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, there are 68,289 individuals currently in ICE custody.
Residents express concern
Residents in Berks County are upset the public didn’t get more information about the warehouse purchase before it changed hands.
One Upper Bern resident remarked that “no one wants a prison, a detention center, in their backyard.”
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania criticized the purchase in Berks County and another facility in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Fetterman says the facility would provide too much strain on local utilities.
Residents also raised concerns about lost tax revenue. The Upper Bern property previously generated roughly $199,620 annually in county taxes, $31,229 in township taxes and $597,110 in school district taxes − even while vacant, according to reporting by Spotlight PA. As a federally owned facility, the property is now exempt from state and local taxation, eliminating that revenue stream entirely.
Can government real estate purchases be prevented?
State and local governments have little power to block land sales to the federal government. Under the property clause of the Constitution, Congress holds exclusive authority over public lands – once the real estate is purchased, it is considered public land.
The supremacy clause bars states and localities from interfering with federal property acquisitions or regulating land use on federal property after a sale. Additionally, in McCulloch v. Maryland the Supreme Court determined that a state did not have the power to tax the federal government.
Section 1231(g) of the U.S. Code authorizes ICE to acquire land and build or operate detention facilities when suitable federal facilities are unavailable. ICE is using funding from President Donald Trump’s tax-and-spending bill, signed into law in July 2025, to purchase the warehouses.
Political pressure as a bargaining tool
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have called for greater transparency around ICE’s property acquisitions, especially when facilities are located in their own districts.
Clear information about plans for the facility or earlier public disclosure about the intended purchases could be helpful, but states have few legal tools beyond political pressure.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro acknowledged that state options are limited, since the federal government is the buyer, but he suggested local governments may have more leverage over permitting.
Local governments do have some control of the regulatory steps that come before a facility opens, especially when a project involves converting an existing warehouse.
Some localities have attempted to block ICE facilities through permitting authority. Officials in Howard County, Maryland, for example, revoked building permits for a private detention center they believed ICE intended to use.
ICE, however, said it had no plans to purchase or open a facility there, making it unlikely the decision will serve as an effective precedent for other communities.
Some states are pursuing more creative legal strategies. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has reportedly considered invoking the state’s “public nuisance” law to block an ICE facility in Surprise, Arizona, arguing the facility would threaten public health and community well-being.
Critics say the approach is legally novel with little precedent, making the outcome uncertain.
Some local officials are taking a more direct approach, appealing to landowners themselves. Officials in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, which borders both Berks and Schuylkill counties, sent a letter urging private parties not to sell or lease property to ICE.
Federal ownership of detention facilities may ultimately prove difficult to challenge, leaving affected communities with little recourse beyond public pressure, as ICE continues to acquire property across the country.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
