Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Benito County agrees to join amicus brief opposing proposed Gilroy ICE detention facility
Summary
After hours of public comment urging action, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors authorized the county to join Monterey County's amicus brief supporting Santa Clara's lawsuit challenging a proposed ICE detention facility outside Gilroy. The decision followed testimony from dozens of residents who said the facility would harm families and the local economy and a smaller group who said detention is needed for public safety.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted June 23 to participate in an amicus (friend‑of‑the‑court) brief being coordinated by Monterey County and the California Attorney General that supports Santa Clara County's lawsuit challenging a planned ICE detention facility near Gilroy. County counsel announced the board's authorization after the meeting's closed session.
The board made the decision after a lengthy public comment period in which dozens of residents, community groups and local advocates urged supervisors to join the legal challenge. Thomas Lemus Welsh, identified as president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told the board the presence of detention infrastructure brings repeated questions for residents: "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" He said the community has seen "egregious things happening across the nation" and asked the board to stand with neighboring counties.
Diane Ortiz, CEO and founder of Youth Alliance, argued the facility, though outside county lines, would have direct consequences for San Benito County residents who work and do business across the region. "By joining the amicus brief being filed by Monterey County ... San Benito County would stand alongside neighboring jurisdictions in defense of constitutional rights, due process, family unity, and community safety," Ortiz said.
Many speakers described fear in immigrant communities, potential economic harms if farmworkers avoid work, and the emotional toll on families. Lisa Stova of Watsonville Law Center said a nearby detention facility "would affect far more than those detained. It would affect families, businesses, agriculture and the overall well‑being of communities through our region." Several public commenters asked the board to add two items to a future agenda: a "no staging zone" policy prohibiting county property use for immigration enforcement, and an emergency response and community support plan.
Not all commenters opposed the detention facility. One speaker who identified herself as an "angel mom" described personal losses to violent crime and called for stronger detention capacity. "We need a nice detention facility because we need law and order," she said, urging supervisors not to join lawsuits against federal agencies.
At the meeting's end, County Counsel reported the board had "authorized that San Benito County be part of the Monterey County effort to file a friend of the court brief in support of the Santa Clara County lawsuit regarding the construction of the ICE detention facility in Gilroy." The counsel said the action was taken "in order to demonstrate support to the agricultural industry and workforce in San Benito County." The report out did not include further details of the closed‑session deliberations.
What happens next: County staff said the amicus filing will proceed through the Monterey County team and the California Attorney General; San Benito County's participation will be recorded in the brief. Several speakers urged the board to add formal policy items to upcoming agendas, including the no‑staging policy and an emergency community support plan.
Votes at the end of closed session were reported by county counsel; procedural details from closed session were not disclosed publicly.
Sources: Public comment at the June 23, 2026 San Benito County Board of Supervisors meeting; county counsel report out.
