KUER0%

A second lawsuit is coming for ICE’s Salt Lake City detention center plan 22%

By Macy Lipkin0%

6/9/2026, 4:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Emotion, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 13.1% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 1,199 faulty-reasoning hits from 853 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of 22% (16,722 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.90% of the article peer group.

First, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County sued the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security over Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s plan to convert a west side warehouse into a detention center. 
And now, Uproar Utah, a committee of the Refugee Justice League, plans to file a similar suit. 
Brent Ward, one of the advocacy group’s attorneys, said this isn’t a NIMBY issue. 
“We're not claiming that we just don't want this in our backyard,” he said. 
“This is insane. 
Period. 
No matter what.” 
The proposed 7,500 to 10,000-person detention center would be more than twice the size of the Utah State Correctional Facility. 
Ward is concerned about impacts to the Great Salt Lake, public health and migratory birds. 
In the city and county’s lawsuit, they raise concerns about drastic environmental, economic and public safety impacts beyond city limits. 
They estimate the warehouse would use one to two million gallons of water a day, up from 5,600 in its previous use, and they argue it would worsen Utah’s air quality and measles outbreak. 
The city and county claim the federal government’s conversion plan violates three federal laws: the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. 
Uproar Utah also plans to cite the first two laws in its suit. 
They may also include the Endangered Species Act. 
Above all, however, Ward worries about the people who would be kept inside the detention center  many of whom likely would not be the “worst of the worst.” 
While crossing the United States border without authorization is a crime, Ward stressed that being in the country without legal status is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. 
Seventy-one percent of those currently in immigration detention nationwide have no criminal record, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which obtains federal government records through Freedom of Information Act requests. 
“The deeper reason is that cramming thousands of immigrants in an overcrowded warehouse denies them the dignity they are due as human beings,” Ward said. 
Utah’s large immigration court backlog, plus a ruling that immigration judges cannot hear bond requests for immigrants who entered the country illegally, means people could wait years in detention before their hearings. 
Lawsuits citing the National Environmental Policy Act are playing out around the country, from a small town in Georgia to states like Maryland, Arizona and Michigan. 
The detention center proposed for Hagerstown, Maryland, is on hold after a federal judge blocked the warehouse conversion due to the lack of environmental review. 
Homeland Security is now conducting an environmental review and accepting public comment. 
The Maryland lawsuit doesn’t apply to other parts of the country in different court circuits, but Ward said it sets a valuable precedent. 
“I think it is that decision, more than any other, so far, has given ICE and DHS pause. 
Like, ‘What, do we want to go through this 11 times, and what are we going to do to avoid it?’” 
So Uproar Utah plans to ruffle ICE’s feathers enough that it abandons its Utah facility, Ward said. 
“If we can make ourselves enough of an aggravation, enough of a provocation to the DHS and ICE with our lawsuit, whatever else we might do to lawfully obstruct this, then we may get dropped.” 
Seema Kakade, a professor at the University of Maryland’s law school, said the National Environmental Policy Act is often referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental law. 
Kakade served at the White House Council on Environmental Quality under the Biden administration. 
“NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, is really the statute that requires federal agencies to take a look at the environmental impacts of major federal actions,” she said. 
Unlike the Clean Air Act or Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act considers various environmental factors altogether, such as air, water and public health. 
The law also requires agencies to consider alternatives for a project  for instance, where a pipeline would be best suited. 
“If you don't even look, if you don't even analyze, how are you supposed to know, right, whether you're making a good choice or whether maybe a different location in the pipeline example would be better,” she said. 
Both NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act deal, in part, with how transparent federal agencies are and how involved the public is, Kakade said. 
So it makes sense that these laws are being cited in lawsuits against ICE’s detention warehouse plans. 
“You can see why they're being cited to, because we don't know what's happening with respect to building of ICE detention centers,” she said. 
While NEPA requires an environmental review, it doesn’t specify what happens next. 
There are many potential outcomes once a review is finished. 
An agency could cancel a project, choose a different location, proceed with mitigating measures or continue as planned, despite potential environmental consequences. 
“They can absolutely do that, assuming, right, that they have complied with NEPA,” Kakade said. 
Macy Lipkin is a Report for America corps member who reports for KUER in northern Utah. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.0%Macy Lipkin: 2.4%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 4.8%Macy Lipkin: 2.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 13.1%Macy Lipkin: 4.3%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 6.8%Macy Lipkin: 1.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.3%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Macy Lipkin: 1.6%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 3.2%Macy Lipkin: 5.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 1.4%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.4%Macy Lipkin: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Macy Lipkin: 5.1%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 9.3%Macy Lipkin: 2.1%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 8.6%Macy Lipkin: 5.6%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 1.6%Macy Lipkin: 1.6%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.8%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.9%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.3%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Macy Lipkin: 1.2%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.8%Macy Lipkin: 4.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority11.8%This article: 2.6%Macy Lipkin: 1.5%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 6.6%Macy Lipkin: 0.9%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 2.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.0%This article: 5.9%Macy Lipkin: 3.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.4%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.1%Macy Lipkin: 4.6%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion10.1%This article: 4.5%Macy Lipkin: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 8.8%Macy Lipkin: 2.2%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.3%Macy Lipkin: 0.4%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.3%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 3.9%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.6%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.6%This article: 10.3%Macy Lipkin: 1.7%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.3%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.8%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading1.8%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Macy Lipkin: 0.9%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 0.4%Macy Lipkin: 0.8%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.4%This article: 2.9%Macy Lipkin: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.9%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.5%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Macy Lipkin: 0.7%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

853 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers47%attributed speech456writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 3 words • 100.0% coverageBrent Ward • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBrent Ward • 35 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 38 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSeema Kakade • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brent Ward

84%flagged-word coverage
180 attributed words45% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice+13.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brent Ward: 13.9%13.9%Quote-first Misdirection+1.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brent Ward: 1.7%1.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.