A federal judge scheduled a two-day settlement conference and ordered an update next week in a suit saying detainees at the Everglades center nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” lack meaningful access to counsel. Plaintiffs point to a three-day appointment rule, transfers after scheduled visits and delays that block meetings before deadlines. Florida says fixes and logistical work on the remote facility have addressed the problems.
A federal judge in Florida has ordered a two-day settlement conference and pressed lawyers to resolve a lawsuit alleging detainees at the Everglades immigration center known as “Alligator Alcatraz” lack meaningful access to counsel. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell directed attorneys with settlement authority to appear in Fort Myers next month and demanded an update at a hearing scheduled for next Monday. “The court will not entertain excuses regarding leaving early for flights or other meetings,” the judge wrote in court materials about the conference, signaling a push for concrete remedies rather than procedural delay.
The lawsuit, filed by detainees against state and federal governments, is one of three federal cases challenging practices at the facility that Florida built this summer at a remote airstrip in the Everglades. Attorneys representing detainees are seeking a preliminary injunction to make it easier for clients to meet and communicate with their individual lawyers. Those attorneys say the center’s policies and practices create barriers that undermine access to justice and the basic functioning of the immigration safety net.
Plaintiffs’ court filings describe several specific restrictions. Counsel must make visits by appointment three days in advance, a process that differs from other detention facilities where lawyers can arrive during visiting hours. The filings say detainees are often transferred after attorneys schedule visits, and that scheduling delays have been so long that clients cannot meet with counsel before key deadlines in their immigration cases. Those alleged practices, the filings argue, prevent attorneys from preparing effectively and can lead to missed relief opportunities.
Florida officials have moved to dismiss the legal-access case as moot, contending that the concerns raised initially have been addressed. In their court filing, state lawyers wrote, “In other words, there is no longer a live controversy.” The state also attributed any early delays to the logistical challenge of constructing and staffing a facility for thousands of detainees in a remote area with limited infrastructure.
The facility’s funding and construction blur state and federal roles. Built and operated by the state of Florida and its private contractors during the administration of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the center has nevertheless drawn federal financial support. Federal officials approved reimbursing Florida for $608 million, a figure noted in court accounts and public reporting. That reimbursement arrangement raises questions about oversight, responsibility for detainee care, and accountability when policy decisions by a state facility carry federal dollars and national implications.
Advocates and legal-service providers working on immigration cases have framed the dispute as part of a broader access-to-justice and social-safety-net problem. They emphasize that attorney access is central to fair process in immigration proceedings, where noncitizen detainees often face removal without counsel. Limited contact with lawyers can translate into rushed hearings, inability to assemble evidence, and increased likelihood of deportation without consideration of asylum or other relief.
The litigation sits alongside other challenges to the Everglades center, including environmental litigation. A federal appellate panel in September allowed the center to continue operating by putting on hold a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had ordered the facility to wind down by the end of October. That appeal was paused during the government shutdown and has resumed, adding another layer of ongoing judicial review.
Political dynamics have amplified scrutiny of the site. Former President Donald Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could serve as a model for future detention infrastructure as his administration advocated expanding deportation capacity. The layering of state construction, private contractors, federal reimbursements, and federal policy endorsements has complicated lines of accountability in how detainees are housed and how their legal needs are addressed.
Court-ordered settlement talks create an immediate opportunity for practical fixes, and the judge’s insistence on in-person authority suggests the court expects tangible commitments. Any settlement could reshape operations that attorneys say constrain visits, transfers, and scheduling. The states’ motion to dismiss and its contention that problems have been resolved will be tested against plaintiffs’ testimony and the record of appointment and transfer practices.
Observers of the social safety net for immigrants note that how courts resolve practical access problems at one remote facility may influence policies at other detention sites. The case will also inform debates over whether federal reimbursement creates an obligation for more rigorous federal oversight when state-run facilities hold people pending immigration proceedings. The outcome may affect detainee care, counsel preparedness, and ultimately the integrity of removal proceedings.
The judge’s calendar sets two immediate judicial events. A two-day settlement conference will be held next month in Fort Myers with attorneys who have authority to negotiate, and an update is due at a hearing next Monday. The appellate environmental appeal has resumed as well, meaning multiple courts will continue to examine operations and legality at the Everglades center. Those proceedings will determine whether procedural changes or binding court orders will be required to secure attorneys’ access and related safeguards for detainees.
