San Antonio City Council voted Thursday to support efforts to prevent or delay a planned immigration detention facility on the East Side, while expanding the city’s opposition to include $51 million in federal leases for immigration-related office space at Brooks.

The resolution calls on City Manager Erik Walsh and City Attorney Andy Segovia to identify potential legal violations, monitor compliance with applicable regulations and coordinate with businesses, nonprofits and other government entities on efforts to challenge the proposed facility.

The vote comes two days after San Antonio filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging federal officials failed to conduct a required environmental review before purchasing a nearly 640,000-square-foot warehouse on Southeast Loop 410.

ICE plans to convert the warehouse into a detention and processing facility capable of holding up to 1,500 people.

Thursday’s resolution builds on that lawsuit by directing city officials to explore other legal and administrative remedies, including possible cooperation with outside organizations pursuing their own challenges.

It also requires the city manager and city attorney to support independent assessments approved last week by CPS Energy and the San Antonio Water System of the facility’s potential effects on local utilities, infrastructure and the surrounding community.

While originally focused on the East Side facility, the resolution was expanded after Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones proposed an amendment directing city officials to take similar steps to prevent or delay the execution of two federal leases announced last week at the former Brooks Air Force Base on the Southeast Side.

The two 15-year leases total approximately $51 million for 75,000 square feet of office space at WatersEdge at Brooks. The offices are expected to house immigration-related legal operations, including federal agencies responsible for handling immigration cases and hearings.

ICE already operates two field offices in the San Antonio area.

Jones argued the new office space, located less than 10 miles from the proposed detention facility, could help establish a more permanent federal immigration enforcement presence in San Antonio.

“Those 15-year leases will allow them to have a very strong legal footprint in our community,” Jones said. “That would, frankly, make them fight harder to not only keep the ICE facility on the East Side, but also enable again the legal and the type of logistical network that they see as important for their operations.”

District 3 Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran initially raised concerns about the Brooks leases but declined to amend the resolution, arguing its existing language was broad enough to allow city officials to assist other entities seeking to challenge the federal government’s plans.

Segovia agreed that the original resolution would allow the city to respond to inquiries from the Brooks Development Authority.

Still Jones said she was concerned that opposing the detention facility without also explicitly addressing the Brooks leases in the resolution could create confusion about the city’s position for the public. 

The amendment to the resolution passed despite opposition from Viagran and council members Marc Whyte (D10) and Misty Spears (D9).

Whyte questioned the legal basis for challenging the leases, arguing that environmental concerns surrounding the proposed detention facility did not necessarily apply to existing office space.

“What’s the environmental impact of leasing office space down at Brooks?” Whyte asked. “Are we now going to pick and choose which entities can lease office space in the city of San Antonio based on whether some council members like them or don’t?”

City officials have previously clarified that the legal action regarding an environmental assessment includes impacts on more than the natural environment. 

Jones echoed that in her rebuttal of Whyte’s comments, pointing to the need to consider the potential socioeconomic effects of a larger federal immigration enforcement presence, including its impact on economic development.

District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez, whose district includes the proposed detention facility, argued the two projects were connected and should be addressed jointly. 

“I would make the argument that the lease would not exist if not for the intention to operate the East Side facility,” McKee-Rodriguez said. “And so I think there is a legal argument to be made and a connection that I think we can make as a result of this resolution.”

The amended resolution ultimately passed with Whyte and Spears voting against it.

Both council members criticized the city’s continued efforts to challenge federal immigration operations, arguing that the measures would waste taxpayer money without preventing ICE from carrying out its plans.

“To spend taxpayer money in a fruitless effort to try to delay what the federal government has a right to do is a misguided attempt that just shows that we’re playing politics here,” Whyte said.

The resolution does not authorize additional litigation against the federal government or invalidate the Brooks leases. Instead, it directs city officials to explore available legal options and coordinate with outside groups, with further council approval required for actions beyond their existing authority.

In a statement on Thursday, a DHS spokesperson dismissed the city’s environmental concerns, accusing local officials of using the lawsuit to undermine President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

Asked about the Brooks leases, the spokesperson declined to confirm ICE office locations, citing threats and assaults against immigration officers.

The spokesperson said the agency’s expanding workforce has increased its need for office space, pointing to the addition of 12,000 ICE officers and agents nationwide.