Lexplug logoLexplug

CoreCivic Inc v. Governor of New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed July 22, 2025 (2025)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, a state law that regulates private contractors violates the Supremacy Clause if it functionally operates as a direct regulation of the federal government by prohibiting it from contracting for services essential to the execution of a core federal power.


Facts:

  • Since 1996, CoreCivic has contracted with the federal government to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on private contractors and local governments to manage detention facilities because it lacks the capacity to build or operate enough of its own lockups to handle fluctuating detainee numbers.
  • The Elizabeth detention center is considered 'mission critical' by federal authorities due to its close proximity to Newark and JFK airports, which facilitates deportations.
  • In 2021, New Jersey enacted AB 5207 with the specific intent to prevent any new, expanded, or renewed agreements for civil immigration detention within the state.
  • The state law explicitly bans private detention facilities in New Jersey from entering into, renewing, or extending contracts to house individuals for civil immigration violations.
  • CoreCivic sought to renew its contract with the federal government in 2023, but the new state law legally barred the company from doing so.
  • Without the CoreCivic facility, federal agents would be forced to transport detainees over 250 miles to a facility in Pennsylvania, significantly disrupting federal operations.

Procedural Posture:

  • CoreCivic filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey Governor and Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic, finding the law unconstitutional.
  • The New Jersey Governor and Attorney General appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state law prohibiting private entities from entering into contracts to provide civil immigration detention services violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine of the Supremacy Clause by functionally regulating the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws?


Opinions:

Majority - Circuit Judge Bibas

Yes, the state law violates the Supremacy Clause because it functionally acts as a direct regulation of the federal government's operations. The court reasoned that intergovernmental immunity forbids states from interfering with or controlling the operations of the federal government. While New Jersey argued the law only regulated private companies (the contractors), the court adopted a functional approach, looking at the substance rather than the form of the law. Because the federal government is the only entity that purchases immigration detention services, banning the 'sellers' (private contractors) effectively bans the 'buyer' (the federal government) from the market. This constitutes a direct regulation because it strips the federal government of its discretion to choose how to house detainees, a core federal power. The court distinguished this total ban from neutral regulations that merely increase costs, finding that New Jersey's law was an 'effort to hamstring' federal immigration power.


Dissenting - Circuit Judge Ambro

No, the state law should be upheld because it regulates private parties, not the government itself. The dissent argued that intergovernmental immunity strictly applies only when a state regulates the United States directly or discriminates against it. Since the law's text applies to private companies and not the federal government, it is not a direct regulation. The dissent criticized the majority's 'functional' test as unworkable and argued that neutral state laws that merely burden the federal government should be analyzed under preemption doctrines (Congressional intent) rather than immunity (Constitutional prohibition). Furthermore, the dissent noted that New Jersey also prohibits private prisons for state criminals, suggesting the law is not discriminatory.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a broad, functional interpretation of intergovernmental immunity in the Third Circuit, aligning it with the Ninth Circuit's ruling in GEO Group v. Newsom. By holding that states cannot sidestep the Supremacy Clause by targeting federal contractors rather than the government itself, the court limits the ability of states to hinder unpopular federal policies through indirect regulation. The ruling establishes that when the federal government is the sole customer in a market (like immigration detention), a state ban on the providers in that market is constitutionally equivalent to banning the federal government's activity. This creates a significant barrier for states attempting to use their police powers to restrict federal immigration enforcement operations within their borders.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: CoreCivic Inc v. Governor of New Jersey (2025)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"