Cities across the country are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars – and in at least one case, $1 million – on legal fees tied to the federal government’s plans to expand immigration detention centers, a Straight Arrow News investigation has found.
The public funds, which taxpayers often expect to go toward fixing potholes and hiring new teachers, have covered the cost of court battles over zoning rules, federal contracts and access to information about detention plans in local communities.
In some cases, those disputes escalated quickly, pulling cities into months-long litigation with little clarity on how far the costs could climb. In Leavenworth, Kansas, that fight turned into a year-long legal battle over local control. In Newport, Oregon, officials went as far as seeking outside fundraising to pay for legal fees. And in Merrimack, New Hampshire, preliminary steps to prepare for a potential facility came with legal costs.
Leavenworth, Kansas
Leavenworth, Kansas, racked up more than $1 million in taxpayer-funded legal fees during its court battle with CoreCivic, the country’s largest private owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities.
The fight centered on a former prison building operated by CoreCivic, which closed in 2021 due to a history of documented safety failures and jurisdictional disputes.
To prevent a repeat, the city passed an ordinance in 2012 requiring any prison or detention facility to obtain a special use permit — the same requirement applied to day cares, bars near schools and casinos. When CoreCivic tried to reopen the site for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees without seeking the permit, the city sued.
Leavenworth Mayor Nancy Bauder told Straight Arrow News she was concerned during the litigation about potential expenses being passed along to the taxpayers.
“We didn’t know if we were [going to win], but if they can come in and roll over us and say ‘I don’t need a permit’ then anyone can come in and do that,” Bauder said. “That’s not right. It’s our law and they need to follow our law.”
After a year-long battle, and with city funds running out, CoreCivic agreed to obtain a special use permit. As part of the agreement, the company will reimburse the city for legal fees.
“We could not continue to fight it,” Bauder told SAN.
READ MORE: How ‘no detrimental effect’ became the basis for new ICE detention centers
“We wanted to work collaboratively with city staff to address concerns raised by the community as part of the special use permit process, and we are grateful for that collaboration,” a spokesperson for CoreCivic told SAN in an email. “This collaboration has resulted in both a staff recommendation for approval of our special use permit application, as well as an affirmative vote from the Planning Commission and City Commission.”
Bauder, who personally opposed reopening the facility, ultimately supported approving the special use permit with 17 strict conditions designed to give the city real local control and ongoing oversight.
“If they don’t do one of those things that we have on that list, we pull the permit and it’s done — they’re closed,” Bauder said.
Under its new name, the Midwest Regional Reception Center (MRRC), the facility began housing ICE immigrant detainees in March 2026. As of April 10, 2026 – the most recent date for which data is available – seven people were detained at the facility, which has a capacity for 1,002 detainees, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan research center at Syracuse University.
Leavenworth is far from the only city that has put up a fight against an incoming detention center.
Newport, Oregon
A similar legal and financial strain is unfolding in Newport, Oregon. Last fall, federal contractors began quietly evaluating the city’s municipal airport — home to a critical U.S. Coast Guard rescue helicopter — as a potential site for an immigration detention center.
In October, concerns erupted publicly after the helicopter was abruptly relocated by the U.S. Coast Guard to North Bend, roughly 100 miles south of Newport, with no explanation. Hundreds of people packed into town hall meetings demanding the helicopter’s return.
The helicopter is personal for the city. Taunette Dorsey, a member of Newport Fisherman’s Wives posted a video to Facebook about a time her father, a fisherman, issued a mayday that his boat was going down when she was little.
“And if it wasn’t for a rescue helicopter, I would’ve lost him,” she said.
Within weeks of the helicopter’s relocation, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken found its removal both endangered fisherman and broke procedural rules. She ordered the Coast Guard to immediately return it.
In December, the state of Oregon sued to block any construction of the detention facility. Newport, Lincoln County and the Newport Fishermen’s Wives all became involved in litigation against the Department of Homeland Security.
The city has spent approximately $368,000 in legal fees, according to records obtained by SAN. The records show that at one point, city council became so concerned by the legal costs that the council asked the Greater Newport Chamber of Commerce to facilitate private contributions to fund the ongoing legal fees via GoFundMe.
That fundraising never came to fruition, a spokesperson for the chamber told SAN.
While the attorney general, Lincoln County and Newport Fishermen’s Wives have also filed suit, the records detailing those costs have not yet been received.
Newport Mayor Jan Kaplan and members of the city council have not responded to SAN’s repeated interview requests.
In February, Oregon Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Andrea Salinas, wrote to DHS to “express deep concern and strong opposition to any plans to open or expand (ICE) detention facilities in Oregon.”
The group demanded detailed information about ICE’s plans, citing concerns over safety, transparency, humanitarian standards and lack of notice to local communities.
In late March, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons responded directly to Salinas, stating the agency has “no intentions of putting up a facility in Oregon” and is “not currently planning to expand current detention facilities or open any new long or short-term detention facilities in Oregon.”
Despite the written assurance, both Salinas and local leaders remain skeptical.
READ MORE: Salt Lake City is in a drought. Can it spare water for an ICE detention center?
“I didn’t trust they were serious and that they were gone for good,” said Salinas, whose district does not include Newport.
“In addition to the costs that it takes to file a lawsuit, a little town doesn’t have the capacity to add… God knows how big they were planning to make this facility,” she told SAN. “It would’ve been catastrophic for a small town.”
Salinas said the state shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of legal costs, either.
“They too have to go through all these fights and spend all this money.”
Kaplan isn’t convinced the legal battle is over.
“The meter is still running … it will be over when it’s over,” he said during an April 6 city council meeting. “I think we need to be very cautious in understanding that we’re holding them off. But there’s a court process and they could end the court processes by choosing to settle… but that’s not happening.”
ICE did not respond to SAN’s questions about why the agency is no longer moving forward with plans for a detention facility in the area.
Salinas told SAN the money spent has been well-spent so far, adding the helicopter is necessary for saving lives.
“You cannot put a price tag on human life and safety.”
Even in towns where plans are eventually scrapped, the mere proposition of a facility can trigger thousands in legal fees.
Merrimack, New Hampshire
In Merrimack, New Hampshire, where records obtained by SAN show the town spent roughly $8,000 on outside counsel, Town Manager Paul Micali told SAN the fees were necessary due to the lack of communication and transparency the town received from DHS.
“We were trying to get ready to see what we could and couldn’t do [if a detention center was established],” Micali said. “It allowed us to start with how to proceed if need be.”
In February, New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte announced DHS would not be moving forward with plans for the detention center.
Unlike Leavenworth, Merrimack and Newport are not being reimbursed for the money spent on legal fees.
This direct transfer of local funds from public infrastructure into federal litigation spans the country – from the Northeast to the Midwest and West Coast.
But the fight between local control and federal action pushes even deeper into the nation’s fabric.
In January, city leaders in Kansas City, Missouri told SAN they were blindsided to learn DHS and ICE had quietly toured a warehouse, pegged for one of ICE’s “mega” detention sites — a 900,000 square foot building. The tour came amid a push from the White House to increase capacity for detainees.
Within hours of DHS ’s visit, Kansas City’s city council passed an ordinance to block applications to expand detention facilities not owned or operated by the city through Jan. 15, 2031.
As the cost of due diligence is passed onto local governments, leaders must decide whether it’s worth spending taxpayer money to push back against plans for federal detention centers.
Leavenworth Mayor Nancy Bauder said the year-long legal battle was incredibly stressful.
“But,” she said. “It was worth it. We gotta get reimbursed. This is tax money.”
Round out your reading
- Work for food: New SNAP rules reshaping who gets to eat.
- How Iranians actually feel about regime change and war.
- Feds warn that Russians may hack your internet router. Why?
- The truth behind a medical condition that never existed.
- We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.