Do the Crime, Do the Time? Due Process Erosion and “Alligator Alcatraz”

Source: ABC News

In June of 2025, Florida opened the first-ever wholly state-run immigrant detention center at the request of the federal government. Controversially nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” the South Florida Detention Facility lay in the heart of the Everglades region, occupying thirty-nine square miles of a former public airport. Since its inception, the detention center has been the target of much national attention. Many of these discussions outline concerns about inhumane conditions in the facility and the deprivation of constitutional rights from those detained. The August lawsuit C.M. v. Noem brings these grievances to the fore, highlighting particular civil rights violations occurring within the center. Alligator Alcatraz represents a mere part of President Donald Trump’s large-scale attack on immigration, initiated with his January 2025 executive order declaring the state of U.S. immigration a national emergency. The legal flurry around this facility, along with both the Trump Administration and state officials’ justificatory rhetoric, reveals part of the administration’s larger work in testing how far it can go in limiting due process rights. C.M. v. Noem provides insight into how the administration has pursued this goal using immigration policy as a test subject. It highlights the use of non-traditional immigration legal procedures from detainment through the deportation process. The encouragement and perpetuation due process limitation through projects like Alligator Alcatraz pose serious risks to the rule of law and constitutional formidability.

Named due to the quantity of “alligators you’re going to have to contend (with)” in an escape attempt from the facility, Alligator Alcatraz resides in an extremely isolated part of the Everglades. The facility’s hasty construction arose as part of President Trump’s long-term plan to build “huge camps” used for the internment of those awaiting deportation. The site’s opening was immediately met with outcry regarding allegations of concerning conditions within. Many advocacy organizations and political officials have cited food scarcity, flooding, malfunctioning AC, lack of adequate water, and more. Furthermore, critics of the facility have brought forth concerns for the facility’s capacity and threats of overcrowding. Though Alligator Alcatraz has a reported capacity to house up to 3,000 people, state officials seek to push that number to 5,000. Discussions of the facility’s conditions also featured concerns for Florida’s hurricane season and notorious summer heat, posing a risk to detainee safety. Moreover, Alligator Alcatraz resides in previously federally protected land, prompting concerns among not only environmental activists but members of Florida’s Indigenous community. The facility impedes upon Miccosukee Tribal land, threatening restricted gathering sites, wastewater contamination, and other types of pollution. 

From the beginning, the facility was plagued by numerous legal and ethical concerns. However, C.M. v. Noem, a lawsuit put forth by several former detainees along with the ACLU and other advocacy organizations, reveals Alligator Alcatraz as a major cog in the Trump Administration machinery to erode due process and other constitutionally acknowledged civil rights. The suit targets Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as other federal and state officials involved in the management and enforcement of the facility. Filed in August of 2025, C.M. primarily outlines the facility’s violation of inmates’ traditional trial and attorney rights as constitutionally outlined. It emphasizes that Alligator Alcatraz unjustly creates barriers between detainees and attorney access. According to the Detained Plaintiffs, the facility allots infrequent access to payphones or video conference calls, all of which are heavily monitored in violation of client–attorney confidentiality. The suit also describes the lack of publicly available information on attorney access protocol or judicial proceedings for those detained. Consequently, those within the facility have vastly differing legal and even criminal statuses. Of the unknown number of people in the facility, hundreds actually lack any criminal convictions. This directly contradicts claims by the Florida Attorney General’s Office and Ron DeSantis that all detainees in the facility have gone through routine removal proceedings and have received the final deportation order. In addition to citing the cruel and inhumane alleged uses of punishment in the facility, the suit argues that the orchestrator and enforcers of Alligator Alcatraz blatantly ignored several of the inmates’ constitutionally-protected rights.

C.M. v. Noem lies among the 763 immigration-related civil suits amassed by President Trump since he first took office in 2017. The suit seeks to push back against President Trump’s evident warping of due process precedent established both in the courts and outlined in the Constitution. While relying heavily on the First Amendment’s establishment of public access to judicial proceedings for the sake of transparency and accountability, C.M. v. Noem importantly points toward federal and state officials’ ignorance of Fifth Amendment due process rights. This provision is especially important given the context of President Trump’s other moves to repurpose federal agencies and bodies to enforce his immigration policies. C.M. v. Noem’s Plaintiff argument reveals that Alligator Alcatraz, along with other Trump Administration actions, is working to redefine the parameters and extent of due process rights — not only for non-citizens or non-legal residents, but for anyone suspected of being such.

As outlined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, due process rights prevent those residing in the United States from deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law” — interpreted as provisions such as notice of charges, adequate legal representation, and traditional legal trial proceedings.  Despite the procedural limits on due process in some contexts, these rights extend not only to U.S. citizens but also to legal residents and undocumented individuals. As the constitutional language states that “persons” are eligible for both due process and equal protection if within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, these rights are not exclusive to citizens. Supreme Court holdings have further reinforced this. The Court ruled in Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei (1953) that those who immigrate to the United States, even if illegally, may face deportation “only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.” Further enshrining Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and equal protections for non-citizens in Mathews v. Diaz, the Court precedent explicitly protects non-citizens’ due process regardless of their immigration status. Despite this clear legal framework, the Trump administration has increasingly normalized limitations or outright refusal of due process for these persons. With failures to provide citations to detainees upon arrest, considerable barriers to obtaining an attorney, and even evidence of detainees disappearing from records, Alligator Alcatraz and processes that lead to detainment there remain a firm example of this trend.

`Though lawsuits such as C.M. v. Noem seek to re-emphasize the importance of due process in trial and immigration proceedings, the current President Trump continues to push this precedent to the limit at a rate harmful to the rule of law. The administration’s sanctioning of rights violations in Alligator Alcatraz represents merely one facet of its larger campaign to weaken due process protections. As individuals in this facility can face detainment and even pressures to sign deportation papers without speaking to counsel or standing trial, others in the country, such as legal residents Kilmar Ábrego García and Frengel Reyes face erroneous deportations due to clerical errors coupled with a lack of due judicial proceedings. Consequently, the withholding of due process for non-legal residents creates an eroding definition of just who can access this fundamental right. This effort to constrict due process represents executive and federal overreach that jeopardizes the constitutional balance of power and stability of civil rights. In authorizing state governments to further these aims, the federal government both perpetuates and exacerbates an unconstitutional reconfiguration of power and oversight. If the regard for Court precedent and constitutional enshrinement wanes, the legal guardrails on the role of the executive and government will disintegrate. The outcome of C.M. v. Noem will significantly but not only define our current interpretation of due process rights of persons in the United States. It will serve as a litmus test for the power of executive and state immigration policy in reshaping the scope of this once-settled constitutional right. 

Sinclair Harris is a junior concentrating in History and International and Public Affairs. She is a staff writer for Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at sinclair_harris@brown.edu.

Aidan Fogarty is a sophomore concentrating in International and Public Affairs. He is a staff editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at aidan_fogarty@brown.edu

Natalia Riley is a junior concentrating in Economics and International and Public Affairs. She is a staff editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at natalia_riley@brown.edu