Alameda County board unanimously opposes reopening of FCI Dublin for detention or correctional use

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously April 7 to adopt a resolution opposing any reopening or repurposing of the former Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin for immigration detention or other correctional uses.

Supervisor David Halbert introduced the item and Supervisor Haubert Marquez moved its adoption, framing the measure as a statement of county values in the face of federal detention expansion. "We will stand on the right side of history and stand up for humanity," Marquez said, urging a unanimous vote. The motion passed 5-0 on a roll-call vote.

The board and dozens of public speakers pointed to the facility’s history and documented problems. Kendra Drysdale, who identified herself as a survivor of FCI Dublin, told the board that the site represented “one of the darkest human rights scandals in California’s history” and urged officials to block any reopening. "This is even more concerning today as oversight is removed and abuse and immigration detention is considered to grow," she said.

Community groups, faith leaders, labor representatives and residents gave testimony during an extended public-comment period. Liz Schmidt, a member of the Dublin coalition, cited recent custody deaths and warned the county against enabling further ICE expansion. "As of 03/31/2026, 14 individuals have already died," Schmidt said, urging the board to adopt the resolution to build broad public opposition.

Supervisors who sponsored and supported the resolution described a range of concerns: persistent facility failures and staff misconduct at FCI Dublin, the risk that localities with detention beds see higher rates of local ICE enforcement, and historical parallels to World War II-era mass incarceration. Supervisor Fortunato Bass said the county must ensure future generations do not inherit a legacy of imprisonment: "We stood up. We opposed the repurposing or reopening of the Dublin facility for immigration detention or corrections," she said.

Supervisor Nate Miley, who raised procedural and scope questions earlier in deliberations, said he ultimately supported the resolution after hearing testimony and reviewing the record, noting he wanted to be certain the board’s grounds covered "any correctional purpose" while remaining mindful of potential unintended consequences if the county later considered alternative, community-serving uses of the property.

The resolution is symbolic and does not by itself block federal action. Multiple speakers and supervisors acknowledged that the federal government can still transfer or repurpose property, but they said a unanimous county statement matters politically and may help galvanize legal and community resistance. The board’s action also included a joint letter and outreach to federal partners opposing use of the property for detention.

The board’s unanimous vote was the meeting’s most significant formal action; there was no recorded amendment to the resolution. The board recessed for five minutes after the vote and proceeded with remaining business on the agenda.

What happens next: the resolution registers Alameda County’s formal opposition and can be used to support advocacy and intergovernmental outreach. It does not, by itself, change federal authority over the site; any future legal challenges or negotiations would depend on federal decisions and potential agreements that could be brought back to the county for review.