MIAMI — The First Amendment case pertaining to attorney access at an immigration detention facility in the Everglades — which state officials have called “Alligator Alcatraz”— is heating up.
State officials told a federal court that complying with a late-March order would cause “irreparable harm.”
The order requires the state to provide detainees with access to timely, free and confidential outgoing legal calls, with a minimum of one working phone for every 25 detainees.
“What is happening is a gross constitutional violation, blocking access to counsel,” Katie Blankenship, with the group Sanctuary of the South, a group that provides legal services to immigrants, said. “Provide them phones. Stop complaining about it. Stop gaslighting. Stop whining to the court and do the basic requirements that you’re supposed to.”
The state’s argument against the order points partly to the cost: About $180,000.
Blankenship, who is one of the case plaintiffs, scoffed at that figure given the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars already invested to construct and operate the site.
“Millions, millions of Floridian taxpayer funds went into this facility and yet they can’t spend, what, in their budget is a measly $180,000 to just provide basic phone access?” Blankenship asked.
In a separate filing, a representative for Florida’s Division of Emergency Management told the court that complying is difficult due to the site’s remote location.
Officials stated that “traditional landline service is not an option” because the area “lacks carrier infrastructure.”
The representative said the state would need to either construct a cell tower or employ several Starlink systems and purchase cellphones. They would also need to pay for “specialized technicians to configure” the equipment and maintain connectivity.
“You should have thought of that about that, friends, right? You should have thought about that,” Blankenship said. “What we’re asking for, Christina, is access to telephones. That’s it, right? So, when? As a plaintiff in this case, I frankly don’t care what you do to get me access to my clients. Figure out whatever is the way that makes you the happiest, frankly. Just get it done.”
All sides have told the court that the next steps are an “emergency,” as the final decision will likely impact the legal rights of detainees nationwide, as “immigration and detention,” the state defendants told the court, “continues to become an increasingly more complex problem for federal and state governments.”
“Let’s do it,” Blankenship said. “Yes, we need to set a precedent. ‘Detention facilities are getting more complex?’ No, they’re not. They’re getting more unconstitutional. We need the court to set precedent of understanding what the First Amendment says.
“Bring it on.”
A legal analyst told Local 10 News that providing detainees with phone access to their attorneys is the cost of doing business, adding that you can change immigration policy, but not the constitution.
Copyright 2026 by WPLG Local10.com - All rights reserved.
