Can KC officials really block ICE detention center? What experts say on 5-year ban
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Kansas City enacted a five‑year moratorium using zoning to block ICE sites.
- Legal experts say city can bar private facilities but not federal‑owned centers.
- City can delay federal plans via permits and court fights, possibly deterring use.
Kansas City officials moved quickly this week to block federal immigration detention centers inside city limits, a forceful response that deployed local zoning laws amid reports of a facility planned in south Kansas City.
The local law enacts a five-year moratorium on non-municipal detention centers. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has framed it as a direct countermeasure to reports of a planned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility that has roiled the city.
But will it actually work?
Kansas City’s ordinance has renewed a debate over the powers and limits of American cities to fight back against the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Lucas has vowed to use legal tools to uphold the ordinance and fight any future facility while critics have cast doubt on the plan.
As the federal effort hits home in Kansas City and leaders wrangle over their own powers, The Star spoke with legal and political experts about whether city officials will be able to succeed.
Sophia Genovese, an immigration attorney and faculty at Georgetown University Law Center, said in an interview that local governments have significant authority to regulate their own communities. No laws require local governments to participate in immigration enforcement, she said.
Kansas City’s ability to succeed in blocking any detention center largely depends on how the federal government carries out its plan, she said. The federal government typically does not own and operate its own detention facilities, often relying on private companies, she said.
“It would be really highly unusual for the federal government to suddenly want to operate its own federal detention center here,” Genovese said. “And that would be the only way to overcome this ordinance — is to operate its own federal detention center.”
Local governments, she said, have power to regulate facilities that rely on private companies or local jails, but they don’t have power to regulate the federal government itself.
That could be a positive sign for Kansas City’s efforts. The rumored site of the planned ICE facility is owned and managed by Platform Ventures, a Kansas City-based real estate company, according to a recent letter from the Port Authority of Kansas City, a local development agency that grants incentives.
The potential legal fight would also echo another battle across the state line in Kansas. The Department of Justice last year argued in court that CoreCivic should be allowed to reopen its shuttered prison in Leavenworth as an ICE detention center without first securing local officials’ approval.
After a series of courtroom rejections, the company took steps to apply for a zoning permit. The Leavenworth facility has beds to accommodate 1,033 detainees, company officials have said.
Despite Kansas City’s swift action in response to the facility, at least one elected official has framed it as a losing battle. Kansas City Councilman Nathan Willett said this week that the ordinance could not be enforced because of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law supersedes conflicting local and state laws.
“Kansas City should not take part in obstructing or appearing to obstruct legitimate state & federal law enforcement efforts,” Willett told The Star in a text message this week.
Delaying the facility
Meanwhile, Matt Harris, a political scientist at Park University in Parkville, acknowledged in an interview that the city would likely lose a drawn-out court battle if the federal government officials were determined to pursue the facility and fight the ordinance.
“If the feds are determined to do this because of the Supremacy Clause, because of the ability to use things like eminent domain, I don’t think that the city can prevail, ultimately,” he said.
However, Harris said the city could succeed in another way. City officials could use the ordinance and other legal tools at their disposal to delay the approval of the facility, essentially using courtroom battles and appeals to make it exceptionally difficult for the facility to be used as an immigration detention facility.
“The federal government is trying to do this pretty quickly,” Harris said. “I think if the city is able to kind of hold things up, put some roadblocks in place, then the feds might ultimately say it’s not worth our time and we’re better off looking at other sites.”
Another political scientist echoed Harris’ argument in an email to The Star on Friday, while also acknowledging that the issue was slightly outside of his range of expertise.
“My guess is that the city would be unable to prevent the facility from being located within its boundaries, but it could make the process sufficiently onerous that the federal government seeks a different location that is more accommodating,” said Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Missouri.
One top Republican lawmaker has proposed that the Trump administration pursue a similar idea in response to Kansas City’s ordinance. U.S. Rep. Mark Alford, a Missouri Republican, in a Friday letter to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, suggested the agency consider a location in neighboring Cass County.
“If Kansas City doesn’t want an ICE facility, Cass County has several site options near I-49 which would be ideal fits for ICE’s needs,” wrote Alford, who is a member of the powerful House budget-writing committee.
The Republican lawmaker added that leaders in Cass County, who lean more Republican than officials in Kansas City, were more willing to work with the Trump administration.
“A cooperative jurisdiction would allow federal officials to focus on enforcement operations rather than litigation, permitting disputes, or public opposition campaigns designed to undermine federal authority,” he wrote.
Across the country, local government officials have seen the power they wield to resist the Trump administration’s mass deportations and detentions, said Genovese, the immigration attorney from Georgetown Law.
“It’s really inspiring to see local governments step up in this way,” she said. “And I really hope that other local governments really follow suit and take direction from Kansas City.”
