“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Eleventh Circuit judge Barbara Lagoa, joined by Trump judge Elizabeth Branch, issued a 2-1 decision that reversed a lower court injunction and authorized additional construction and maintenance at the so-called Alligator Alcatraz detention center for immigrants in Florida. Obama nominee Judge Adalberto Jordan strongly dissented from the September 2025 decision in Friends of the Everglades v Secretary of Department of Homeland Security.
What happened in this case?
Earlier in 2025, significant work began on a detention center for undocumented immigrants in Florida, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz. More than 900 people were confined at the site. Environmental groups and other opponents filed a lawsuit in federal court, and Obama nominee Judge Kathleen Williams conducted an extensive hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction against both state and federal agencies involved in the project. In August, Judge Williams entered a preliminary injunction that stopped further construction of Alligator Alcatraz and called for its closing and dismantling in sixty days.
The government defendants sought a stay of the injunction from Judge Williams, who denied the request. They then sought a similar stay of the injunction pending appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.
How did Trump judges Lagoa and Branch rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump judges Lagoa and Branch issued a 2-1 decision that granted the stay requested by the government, strongly suggesting that the preliminary injunction was erroneous and holding that Alligator Alcatraz should continue as a detention center. The majority ruled that the primary basis of the preliminary injunction, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), did not apply in the case because it was a state and not a federal project.
Judge Jordan strongly dissented. Based on the record at the injunction hearing, including statements by both the state and federal governments, it was clear, he explained, that the federal government was playing a significant role in the project and that NEPA applied. This meant that the failure to produce an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) violated the law. He also noted that the district court had found that the project would likely cause “irreparable harm” to the Everglades, including “increased runoff,” serious “risks to communities dependent on the Everglades for their water supply,” and “increased mortality to endangered species.”
Although further proceedings in the case are likely, the Lagoa-Branch ruling will clearly cause environmental harm and permit significant additional confinement of immigrant detainees in Florida. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.