America Needs an EIS on Immigration Policy

On August 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a preliminary injunction against the South Florida Detention Facility — “Alligator Alcatraz.” She ordered an immediate halt to facility construction work, with operations to begin winding down within 60 days.

Judge Williams’ decision was based on the lack of any environmental review, despite the facility being located within the ecologically sensitive Big Cypress National Preserve. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), such large-scale projects are subject to environmental impact statements (EIS’s). The judge found substantial evidence of potential environmental harm, including damage to wetlands, wildlife habitat disruption, and threats to endangered species.

Subsequently, a federal appeals court has stayed Judge Williams ruling. But whatever the final disposition of this case, it seems reasonable to evaluate the environmental impacts of such substantial projects. Still, a glaring question remains. Why require EIS review of a single immigration holding facility, even a really big one, but not the immigration policies that bring tens of millions of people into our country every decade?

NEPA and Immigration

Over the years, many people have argued that NEPA review should be applied to U.S. immigration policy. The logic goes like this: since immigration drives the overall size of the U.S. population and population growth drives a variety of environmental impacts, federal immigration policy should trigger an EIS. In fact, NEPA’s enacting language acknowledges the importance of population growth, stating that Congress recognizes “the profound influence of population growth” on the natural environment (Title I, Section 101a).

In 2016, the environmental NGO Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR) published its own Environmental Impact Statement on U.S. Immigration Policies. The EIS focused on key issues such as urban sprawl and loss of farmland, habitat loss and impacts on biodiversity, and water supply demands and withdrawals. Its analysis found that continuing then-current immigration rates would result in significant, long-term, widespread adverse environmental impacts. Since its publication, net immigration into the U.S. has greatly increased.

Illustration of some of the pathways through which population increase harms habitat and wildlife.

Five years after the PFIR EIS, the Center for Immigration Studies filed a lawsuit in federal court, litigating claims against the Biden administration for NEPA violations relating to immigration. In 2024, a federal judge ruled that the Biden administration had violated NEPA by implementing immigration policies — such as ending the “Remain in Mexico” program, halting border wall construction, creating parole programs for certain foreign nationals, and expanding refugee admissions — without conducting an EIS.

This case, Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. Department of Homeland Security, is the first time a federal court has held that immigration policy decisions could indeed require NEPA review. Though not a physical project, NEPA’s requirements can be triggered when policy actions lead to measurable environmental consequences due to increased population and related impacts.

This legal ruling could support the Trump administration’s immigration reduction agenda, and make it harder for future administrations and Congresses to undo. You can learn more about this fascinating case in this podcast with Julie Axelrod, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Environmental Impacts from Immigration Policies

America’s immigration policies have had significant environmental consequences. This is especially true for the period since 1965, which saw large immigration increases. There are now 52 million foreign-born people living in America, more than five times greater than in 1965.

This additional growth to America’s population has had a large, negative environmental impact. According to the 2016 Immigration EIS, immigration-driven population growth has exacerbated the following environmental problems:
 Urban sprawl
 Groundwater depletion
 Water supply shortages
 Air pollution episodes (e.g., ozone, particulates)
 Fisheries declines
 Loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat
 Biodiversity loss across a wide variety of species
 Water pollution from non-point sources, such as urban runoff
 Loss of open space, wilderness areas, and farmland
 Traffic congestion

Indeed, there is no doubt that population growth drives environmental degradation. The only effective way to address all America’s environmental problems, long-term, is to significantly reduce immigration-driven population growth. Any policy that ignores this reality by increasing immigration rates certainly warrants formal review of the environmental consequences.