The proposed Newport ICE detention center at the Newport Municipal Airport in Oregon is, for now, off the table: in a January 2026 court filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed it had been planning to use a Coast Guard hangar at the airport as a temporary holding and processing facility but had ceased those activities on December 4, 2025.1 The City of Newport and the State of Oregon are nonetheless pressing forward with lawsuits, arguing that ICE’s assurances stop short of a binding, permanent commitment not to revive the project.
What Was Planned at the Airport
Public awareness of the project built through late 2025. On November 4, 2025, Team Housing Solutions, a Texas contractor that supplies temporary housing to federal agencies, sent the City of Newport a letter of intent to lease a 4.3-acre parcel at the airport to “support federal operations.” The proposed site was directly adjacent to the 3.5-acre Coast Guard air facility known as AIRFAC Newport. Newport’s city manager declined to sign the non-binding letter.
In the same week, Acuity International, a Virginia-based federal contractor, posted job openings in Newport for clinical staff, detention officers, and case processing specialists, all listing “DHS or ICE detention center experience” as a preferred qualification. A local septic company reported that Acuity had asked about pumping 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of sewage per day from the airport site, a volume consistent with hundreds of people on site. Local hotels were separately approached about reserving up to 200 rooms for government contractors for as long as a year.
In a court filing months later, acting ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations assistant director Ralph Ferguson confirmed the agency had conducted environmental compliance activities, explored leasing or purchasing 15 acres near the airport, contacted a local hotel about 200 rooms, solicited construction support, and begun planning health services for the site. Oregon’s amended complaint alleged that ICE had told contractors it would hold detainees for under 72 hours to avoid triggering higher federal standards of care, while internally acknowledging that stays could exceed that threshold.
The Coast Guard Helicopter Fight
The airport project became inseparable from a parallel dispute over search-and-rescue coverage. In October 2025, the U.S. Coast Guard removed a rescue helicopter from AIRFAC Newport and relocated it to North Bend, roughly 100 miles south. Local officials said the move was made without the public notice or congressional consultation required by federal law, and they suspected it was tied to clearing the site for ICE use.
Lincoln County and the Newport Fishermen’s Wives sued over the helicopter’s removal on November 21, 2025. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed the state’s suit on November 24, and U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken granted a temporary restraining order that same day, requiring the Coast Guard to restore helicopter operations. On December 22, Judge Aiken issued a 41-page preliminary injunction ordering the Coast Guard to maintain helicopter deployment at Newport for the duration of the case. She found the Coast Guard had likely violated 14 U.S.C. § 912 by failing to conduct required safety determinations, hold public meetings, or notify Congress before a significant reduction in operations. The ruling emphasized that the removal came on the eve of Dungeness crab season, which she described as “the most lucrative and the most dangerous season of the year for Newport’s fishermen,” and that response times from alternate bases would rise from 15–30 minutes to 60–90 minutes, a delay she said “exponentially decreases survival probability” in cold-water emergencies.
The Lawsuits Challenging the Detention Facility
Oregon amended its complaint on December 19, 2025, adding claims that directly targeted the proposed ICE facility. The state argued the federal government was bypassing environmental and coastal land-use regulations by planning the facility without transparency, public process, or required notice.
The City of Newport filed its own separate lawsuit on December 22, 2025, naming Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, and other federal officials as defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, arguing federal officials had failed to conduct environmental impact assessments or seek public input. It also invoked a 1992 deed under which Newport had granted the Coast Guard a conditional interest in 3.5 acres at the airport for aviation purposes, with a reversion clause requiring the land to be returned to the city if used for anything else.
A DHS spokesperson responded that “The Department of Homeland Security reserves the right to use its own property to support its own operations,” and called the city’s characterization of the site as a “remote black site” an “unhinged smear.”
ICE’s Withdrawal and Why Officials Are Not Satisfied
On January 28, 2026, Ferguson’s court filing confirmed for the first time that ICE had been pursuing the Newport site and stated the agency had stopped those activities on December 4, 2025, after determining the Coast Guard base was no longer available following the helicopter’s return. The filing said ICE had “no plan or intention to begin construction or open an ICE facility in the City of Newport or at Newport Municipal Airport between now and until May 1, 2026.” That phrasing alarmed local officials because it left the door open after that date.
On February 27, 2026, DHS moved to dismiss the consolidated cases, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the project was no longer active. Ferguson submitted a new declaration stating: “At present, ICE has no plan or intention to begin construction or to open a temporary holding/processing facility in or around the City of Newport, Oregon or anywhere within Lincoln County, Oregon.”
On March 26, 2026, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons responded formally to a February 12 letter from Oregon’s congressional delegation, led by Representative Andrea Salinas and Senator Jeff Merkley. Lyons confirmed that ICE “is not currently planning to expand current detention facilities or open any new long or short-term detention facilities in Oregon” and that the agency “does not plan to move forward with a soft-sided detention facility in Newport, as had previously been reported.”
Mayor Jan Kaplan has said the assurances are not enough. “We will continue our litigation until we secure sufficient guarantees that they will take no action, now or in the future,” she stated, adding that the federal government had left the community in a “state of uncertainty.” The city has called on residents and leaders to “remain vigilant.”
Where the Case Stands and What It’s Costing Newport
In late February 2026, the federal cases were consolidated before Judge Aiken, with the state’s case (Oregon v. Noem, No. 6:26-cv-00186) designated as the lead and the city’s case (City of Newport v. Noem, No. 6:25-cv-02396) folded in. In April 2026, Judge Aiken granted a motion allowing the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition and Cascadia Wildlands to join as plaintiff-intervenors. As of mid-2026, Judge Aiken has not ruled on the motion to dismiss, and multiple extensions have pushed the plaintiffs’ response brief deadline to June 30, 2026.
The litigation has been costly for a city of roughly 10,000 people. By January 2026, Newport had been billed $184,748 by its outside counsel, the Portland firm Stoll Berne. The city council approved transferring $350,000 from the general fund to cover ongoing costs, and total expenses were projected to reach $500,000. Newport sent letters to municipalities across Oregon asking for contributions of up to $20,000 each. As of late May 2026, the city had received $15,000 from Ashland, $7,000 from Yachats, and a $5,000 commitment from Benton County.
Oregon’s Sanctuary Framework in the Background
Oregon’s resistance sits on top of one of the country’s oldest sanctuary frameworks. The state enacted the nation’s first sanctuary law in 1987, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources for federal immigration enforcement, and the Sanctuary Promise Act of 2021 strengthened those protections. Under current Oregon law, state and local agencies cannot share personal information with ICE, hold individuals for immigration authorities, or grant ICE access to non-public spaces without a judicial warrant. State law also explicitly prohibits private entities from operating immigration detention centers within Oregon. Those state-law limits apply to private and state actors; they do not, on their own, prevent the federal government from operating a facility on federal property, which is why the Newport dispute has turned on federal statutes, the 1992 deed, and environmental review requirements rather than on the sanctuary law alone.