The Brief

The private prison company CoreCivic has sold two of the largest immigration detention facilities in California to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a deal worth $1.5 billion, the company announced Monday.

CoreCivic said it anticipates that the sale of the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County and the California City Detention Facility in Kern County will bring the company an estimated net proceeds of approximately $1.1 billion.

The sale closed on July 2, according to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with the federal government paying $739.2 million for the 1,994-bed Otay Mesa facility and $732.6 million for the newly-opened 2,560-bed California City facility.

CoreCivic said in a news release that it expects to continue running the day-to-day operations of both facilities under existing contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company acknowledged in its filing that the terms of those contracts could be renegotiated now that the federal government owns both properties outright.

They also might not be renewed. CoreCivic's contract in California City contract runs through August 2027, and its Otay Mesa contract is in effect through December 2029, with an option to extend for five more years.

The purchase comes as the Department of Homeland Security sits on an unprecedented influx of cash. The 2025 federal budget gave the department roughly $170 billion for immigration enforcement and detention, including $45 billion specifically earmarked for expanding detention capacity through fiscal year 2029.

The acquisition of the two sites is another step in the federal government’s plan to build out national immigration detention capacity that isn’t reliant on the two largest private prison contractors, according to a brief from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law from February.

The proposed transition away from private detention was described at the time as the “ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative” in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents released by the city of Social Circle, Georgia, where city leadership was worried about the strain on city services from a major detention facility housing between 7,500 and 10,000 people.

“This new model will allow ICE to create an efficient detention network by reducing the total number of contracted detention facilities in use while increasing total bed capacity, enhancing custody management, and streamlining removal operations,” according to the unsigned ICE memo.

The Department of Homeland Security’s purchasing program surprised local officials in at least five states, who only learned of the purchases and their purpose after the deals closed. Some of those projects have run into legal challenges, according to the New York Times, though the agency appears to be moving forward with four warehouse acquisitions.

Health inspections at ICE centers

California law allows state and local officials to inspect immigrant detention centers, and Democratic leaders have drawn attention to conditions inside since President Donald Trump began his second term. Eight ICE detention centers are operating within the state, up from six since former President Joe Biden left office.

Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat, has visited both of the sites CoreCivic sold to the federal government and spoken up for the needs of detainees, including access to healthcare.

"Too many people who pose no threat to public safety and should not be in detention are nevertheless being held in unacceptable conditions with inadequate access to medical care, legal counsel, clean water, nutritious food, and other basic necessities," he said in a written statement. "Whether these facilities are operated by a private contractor or owned by the federal government, my expectations remain the same."

The Otay Mesa facility has been at the center of an ongoing legal fight over local health inspections. San Diego County officials sued the federal government and CoreCivic in March after claiming health inspectors were blocked from a full inspection under a 2024 state law. A federal judge later granted county health officials access to the detention center.

Private prison companies CoreCivic and GEO Group have fought back against California’s 2024 county-inspection law in court, arguing that states can’t pass laws that directly burden the federal government’s core functions. GEO Group has argued the state law is unconstitutional because it steps on federal authority over immigration detention centers.

“This is Trump’s mass detention agenda getting bigger, more permanent, and more expensive — with CoreCivic getting a billion-dollar payday while still running the cages. DHS may own the building, but it does not own the law," San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer said in a written statement about the sale.

An aerial view of the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego on May 20, 2026.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

California City opened last year in eastern Kern County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles in a site the company previously operated as a state prison.

California City opened last year in eastern Kern County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles in a site the company previously operated as a state prison. A federal lawsuit is ongoing about whether the facility opened without proper permits in remote California City.

Grisel Ruiz, a staff attorney from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the change in ownership does not change her organization’s opinion that the facility opened without the required permits.

The organization intends to ask California City’s planning commission on Tuesday to deny the permits and shut down the facility. Attorney General Rob Bonta has urged the same.

“The sale to DHS doesn’t change the fact that CoreCivic must still lawfully operate the facility,” said Ruiz.

Ruiz also noted the sale deal appeared favorable for CoreCivic in that they get the profits from the sale of the property, as well as revenue from continuing to operate the facilities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement

“They get to have their cake and eat it too,” said Ruiz.

CoreCivic said the sale prices were set through a federal government process in which independent appraisers account for replacement cost, depreciation and land value to determine fair market value. Spokesman Ryan Gustin said the appraisals were reviewed by the government for compliance with federal standards.

“The process was marked with rigor and integrity,” he said in an emailed statement.

More sales possible

The company also disclosed that it is having ongoing talks with ICE about selling the federal government additional detention facilities, though it said those discussions are in the early stages of a deal and may not close.

Maryland-based CoreCivic said the proceeds from the sale, which would be about $1.1 billion after taxes and transaction costs, could go toward paying down its bank credit and retiring $238.5 million in senior notes coming due in 2027. Any remaining funds are earmarked for further debt reduction or possibly stock buybacks.

Patrick Swindle, the president of CoreCivic, said in the news release, “We are pleased with the sales of these two mission-critical facilities for the Company’s government partner, while reflecting our role as a long-term, flexible solutions provider to government.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Duplex projects will be allowed to move forward once again in two Southern California cities affected by last year’s fires. The change of course is the result of a court showdown between advocates for denser housing and local elected officials who wanted to ban more units from cropping up in burn zones.

The cities of Malibu and Pasadena have agreed to settle with the plaintiffs who brought forward a lawsuit that challenges local jurisdictions’ suspension of Senate Bill 9 in high fire risk zones, according to documents obtained by LAist.

Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the result will help residents get more out of their properties.

“I want them to know that they can build,” Trauss said.

How we got here

SB 9 allows single-family homeowners across the state to build duplexes and split their lots. It became state law in 2021. SB 9 applicants can use the law to create up to four units where a single-family home once stood, in some cases. The law takes away the ability of local governments to block these projects.

However, after the 2025 fires, some homeowners affected by the fires erupted with anger over the prospect of their burned-down neighborhoods being rebuilt with denser housing. They argued more homes — and the additional residents that come with them — would clog evacuations and hurt neighborhood character.

In July 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an order giving local leaders the power to block the law in very high fire hazard areas within the Palisades and Eaton fire burn zones.

Elected officials in L.A. city, the county of L.A., Pasadena and Malibu followed suit and adopted policies to stop processing SB 9 applications in those areas.

Advocates for increased housing development, including YIMBY Law, sued the governments, alleging they didn’t have the authority to suspend laws passed by the legislature.

Trauss told LAist housing advocates believe the order is being misused for political purposes.

“ It chips away at the policy,” she said. “Especially in the Palisades, everybody could watch the political back-and-forth that caused that to happen.”

The backlash on social media to SB 9 projects in the Palisades was led by former reality TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the fire and later mounted an unsuccessful campaign for L.A. mayor.

What the settlement means

According to the settlement documents, Malibu and Pasadena have agreed to repeal the local ordinances that blocked SB 9 projects by the end of September. The settlements still require City Council action to undo those bans.

The cities are also supposed to process any pending SB 9 applications that were submitted, paused or rejected.

Another plaintiff in the lawsuit — Andrew Slocum, CEO of Green Development Company — said he thinks Newsom never should have signed the executive order in the first place.

Slocum said he hopes to see recovering homeowners have more options when rebuilding their properties. Last year, he told LAist he was working with homeowners on SB 9 projects.

The settlement “allows for the people to hopefully be able to come back and resubmit that application,” Slocum said, “because most people who are doing SB 9 are the homeowners themselves.”

The Pasadena City Council took the first step toward repeal on July 20, according to city spokesperson Lisa Derderian. She said they’ll start processing SB 9 applications once the vote is finalized.

“The City reached a conditional settlement with YIMBY in recognition of the uncertainty inherent in litigation and the significant passage of time since the Eaton Fire in January 2025,” she said in a statement.

LAist contacted officials in the city of Malibu for comment but has not heard back.

What’s next

The county and city of L.A. are still fighting the lawsuit. They control land use in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades, home to the lion’s share of properties affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires.

State officials also continue to defend the restrictions. Newsom’s office stands behind the executive order and plans to defend it in court, according to a state official.

Trauss said the parties met for  a trial setting conference a few days ago.

“ I want the folks in the county and in the city of L.A. who could build … to have hope,” she said.

The lawsuit is playing out while state legislators are moving forward with a new bill, SB 1090, which would expand the ban on SB 9 to all of Altadena.

One Hollywood icon is prepping for a comeback. The Cinerama Dome – one of the most famous movie theaters in the world – has been closed since the COVID pandemic. But it's now got a new lease on life, thanks to SONY Pictures and Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.

The studio announced it will lease, restore and reopen the famous theater in 2028; Alamo Drafthouse plans to program and operate it and 14 other screens at the adjoining multiplex.

"Hot damn! We're bringing the Dome back, baby," SONY Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group CEO Tom Rothman said in a statement. "We believe in moviegoing down to our soul, and no venue on Earth stands more for that than the one-of-a-kind Dome."

"There's a lot of passion behind this theater," says Michael O'Leary, who heads Cinema United, the global association of movie theater owners. He says while the Cinerama Dome's closing was a symbol of the pandemic, its recovery is proof the pandemic is behind us and movie theater-going is back.

"It's really exciting," agrees Escott Norton, former executive director and current board member of the Los Angeles Historic Theatre Foundation. "There's been a lot of people waiting with baited breath to see when the dome is going to reopen. People think of this as the ultimate Hollywood experience."

As an LA native and former film production designer, Norton has great memories of going to the Cinerama Dome. He says it was always an immersive experience to watch movies inside the geodesic-shaped auditorium designed to show wide screen movies.

"When I saw Close Encounters on this giant screen curved around me, it knocked my socks off," he says, adding he was also blown away watching Apocalypse Now at the Dome. "The movie opens up with this wide screen of just a quiet jungle, birds tweeting and then it explodes. Being surrounded by that on the curved screen, it still gives me tingles thinking about it."

The Cinerama Dome in October 2021.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

The Cinerama Dome was built in 1963 by William Forman – the founder of Pacific Theaters, who had popularized drive-in cinemas. Forman commissioned a French architect who had studied under R. Buckminster Fuller, a designer of other geodesic structures. The theater was originally made to showcase Cinerama, a format developed in the 1950s that was part of the widescreen craze designed to lure viewers away from television and back to cinemas.

Forman was able to get the theater constructed in 16 weeks … just in time for the world premiere of a madcap comedy called, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. The movie ran four hours long, with an intermission. Filmmakers had originally planned to use the Cinerama format, but abandoned it, shooting in Ultra Panavision 70 millimeter instead.

Still, it featured a who's who of comedy at the time – including Sid Caesar, Edie Adams, Milton Berle, and Buddy Hackett. Buster Keaton even makes a ten second cameo. "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World played at the Cinerama Dome, the brand new theater, for two years without stopping," recalled Karen Sharpe, the widow of the movie's director, Stanley Kramer. The former TV actress and producer spoke at a rally to preserve the Cinerama Dome last year, and talked about the star-studded premiere.

"It was a real happening," she remembered. "Bobby Kennedy came, Adlai Stevenson came and President and Mrs. Kennedy accepted the invitation to attend the opening. A few days before, they called to say 'So sorry, we have to [decline] the invitation because President and Mrs. Kennedy have to go to Dallas.' And we know what happened in Dallas."

Over the decades, the theater became a mecca for cinephiles. The dome was sometimes costumed like the movies it screened. Once, a replica Godzilla appeared to burst through the egg-like roof. Another time it was painted green with ears to resemble Shrek's head. Figures depicting the Pink Panther, Spider Man and the Minions have perched or crawled atop the Dome.

And fans were treated to countless premieres and special events, like when filmmaker Quentin Tarantino personally welcomed audiences to his 2019 feature Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. For the film, he included exterior shots of the Dome.

Two years later, after the Cinerama Dome's operators went bankrupt during the pandemic, Tarantino talked about how it was one of his favorite LA landmarks.

"I don't know if I could 100% afford it, but I would love to own the Cinerama Dome," he said on The Jess Cagle Show on SiriusXM. "That would be fantastic."

Tarantino already owns two other historic LA cinemas. But other preservationists and activists have been working to revive the dormant theater. Many of them credit the efforts of Benjamin Steinberg, a 27-year-old filmmaker and actor who appeared on Brooklyn Nine-Nine.

"The Cinerama Dome is the most famous movie theater in the world," Steinberg said, standing outside the boarded-up theater. "It seemed like it was going to be a demolition by neglect. So I was, like, something has to be done."

Steinberg created a campaign to save the Cinerama Dome. He organized a few street rallies, and wrote an online petition that amassed more than 30,000 signatures.

Ben Steinberg projected images onto the dome as part of a campaign to save the theater.

(

Ben Steinberg

)

Then in March, Steinberg went even further to get the attention of the Forman family, which still owns the property: he projected images of the owners' faces onto the outside of the Dome, asking them to reopen the theater.

"We actually projected it for two hours and then they called the police on us," Steinberg explains. "We didn't get arrested; The police just said that the ownership considered it an escalation and harassment. I never wanted to anger the owner, so we stopped immediately."

Steinberg's stunt created a lot of buzz, and may have moved the needle, says theater preservationist Norton. His group had been consulting with architects on restoration plans in hopes that someone would save the day.

"We were all working behind the scenes. But Ben Steinberg really got on board on social media to save the dome," says Norton. "I'm very happy he did. You know, you sort of have to rattle the chains sometimes."

Meanwhile, Sony has promised to preserve the Cinerama Dome's history while ensuring its future.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A pair of federal court battles unfolding in the coming weeks could reshape the future of homelessness funding across the Los Angeles region.

Two separate lawsuits challenging recent actions by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will help determine whether L.A.’s embattled lead homelessness agency can compete for up to $241 million in federal grants this year and how that money can be spent.

Both legal challenges reflect a broader fight over the Trump administration's efforts to remake federal homelessness policy and crack down on perceived misspending by local governments overseeing federal assistance programs.

Will lead L.A. agency stay suspended?

The lawsuits center on HUD’s national Continuum of Care grant competition, the largest source of federal homelessness dollars flowing to L.A. each year.

Since the 1990s, HUD has required metropolitan areas like L.A. County to submit one single application for the region’s entire chunk of annual funding. The L.A. Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, has been responsible for submitting that application on behalf of the region.

That changed in June, when HUD suspended LAHSA from federal grant activity pending a federal investigation into alleged financial mismanagement. The federal agency said LAHSA’s suspension meant it was not allowed to apply for this year’s grants, even though the agency has been working on an application.

LAHSA sued to overturn the suspension and is moving forward with its application while awaiting guidance from the court. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 6 on LAHSA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

HUD has since formally invited homeless service providers to apply directly for the federal homelessness money, bypassing LAHSA entirely.

Meanwhile, the L.A. County Development Authority has offered to apply for the region instead of LAHSA, if necessary.

HUD’s application deadline is Aug. 26. That’s when LAHSA, or an alternative applicant, would submit its final application to the federal government.

Shift away from permanent housing

The second lawsuit between HUD and local officials focuses on how federal homelessness dollars can be spent.

The L.A. Continuum of Care historically spends about 90% of its more than $200 million federal funding allocation on permanent housing interventions — including subsidies to help cover people’s rent, according to LAHSA.

That approach is part of a philosophy and strategy known as “housing first,” which prioritizes providing unhoused people with a stable place to live as the first step towards recovery from life on the streets. Additional issues, like unemployment, addiction, mental illness or other health problems, are typically addressed only after first moving someone indoors.

But that approach is now under fire from the Trump Administration, which has made multiple attempts to remake the federal Continuum of Care program to fund fewer permanent housing beds and focus more on drug treatment, recovery and enforcement.

As the Trump administration geared up to pivot away from the “housing first” model, HUD initially proposed rules limiting permanent housing to 30% of local spending. Last year, the city of L.A. and other municipalities joined litigation challenging the HUD guidance.

This June, Judge Mary McElroy struck down the proposed HUD rules, but denied cities’ request for a permanent injunction.

HUD had already issued new grant regulations, this time capping permanent housing at no more than 60% of local spending plans, forcing the states to start over with a new legal complaint assigned to the same federal judge.

U.S. President Donald Trump greets United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner during the congressional picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on May 19, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(

Heather Diehl

/

Getty Images

)

States push back

Last month, nearly two dozen states, including California, sued HUD over those regulations, asking McElroy to again throw out HUD’s new funding rules.

The proposed rules put more than 5,000 Angelenos at risk for homelessness, according to projections by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

The states hope for a ruling by Aug. 10, so that regions like L.A. have time to align their applications. The lawsuit argues the restrictions conflict with federal law and undermine the federal government's long-standing “housing first” strategy.

The Trump administration says the new rules are intended to move federal policy toward approaches emphasizing mental health treatment, addiction recovery and personal accountability.

If HUD prevails, local officials warn the consequences could ripple across L.A. County, affecting one of the region’s largest sources of funding for permanent supportive housing and other homelessness programs.

The federal funding at stake has been roughly a quarter of LAHSA’s annual budget in recent years and is among the largest single sources of money for the region’s homelessness programs, which are also funded by the state, county and city.

The story behind the Trump admin’s LAHSA fight

HUD imposed the suspension earlier this year amid mounting scrutiny of LAHSA's financial oversight and operations. Auditors and local officials have raised longstanding concerns about the agency’s internal controls, contract monitoring and oversight of homelessness funds.

LAHSA argues HUD's suspension is unlawful and could jeopardize the region's ability to secure funding.

On July 2, Carter directed HUD and LAHSA to propose an order to temporarily keep the current funding process in place while the case moves forward. The two sides couldn't agree on the terms.

LAHSA sent an email to service providers last week urging them to continue with the current process.

“Please do not let this notice disrupt your current application preparation,” the letter said. “We strongly urge all service providers to stay the course.”

Other regional homelessness officials clarified they’re moving forward with the consolidated application and working to protect existing program funding.

Sarah Mahin, director of L.A. County’s new Department of Homelessness and Housing, said the county expects to receive more direction from the court before or at the August 6 hearing. Until then, Mahin said, “The existing competition process and LAHSA’s role as collaborative applicant should remain undisturbed while the court considers the preliminary injunction motion.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter walks on a tour of the VA's West LA facilities on Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024 in West Los Angeles, CA.

(

Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

/

Los Angeles Times

)

How the feds are planning for court decisions

In a July 21 court filing, HUD said it intends to delay any final action against the L.A. Continuum of Care until Aug. 10, or whenever the court rules on LAHSA’s request for a preliminary injunction.

HUD also said that if the suspension holds and LAHSA and the court determine local applicants must apply directly, the federal agency will give providers an additional 30 days to submit their applications.

Carter is also overseeing a major L.A. legal settlement stemming from a lawsuit by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights over the city and county’s response to the homelessness crisis. Carter ordered all of the parties in the Alliance settlement to also appear at the Aug. 6 hearing in the case between LAHSA and HUD.

How service providers are preparing

Homeless service providers, caught in the middle of HUD’s legal battles with LAHSA and with states, say they want to make sure services aren’t disrupted.

LAHSA’s own deadline for local homeless service providers to submit their individual applications as part of the collaborative application process was last week. More than 100 local nonprofit service providers have already submitted theirs.

Several organizations told LAist they’re prepared to submit applications directly to HUD, including Hope the Mission, a large homeless services provider operating primarily in the San Fernando Valley.

“While larger organizations have the administrative capacity to pivot quickly, we are concerned about smaller, specialized community providers who may struggle to navigate a direct HUD submission without localized technical assistance,” said Ivet Samvelyan, a vice president at Hope the Mission.

Service providers told LAist they’re watching the two court cases closely, and awaiting clearer guidance from local officials about what to do next.

“Our concern is less about the application process itself and more about the policy direction it represents, which is an attempt to take funding away from evidence-based practices such as permanent supportive housing and instead fund programs that require sobriety and compliance,” said Tian Martinez, a spokesperson at Union Station Homeless Services.

The Alhambra City Council voted unanimously Monday to put a measure on the November ballot that will ask local voters to ban data centers citywide.

Why it matters

If the measure passes, Alhambra could become the second city in California to pass a ban on data centers through a public vote.

In June, Monterey Park became the first city to pass such a ban.

The details

Council members previously voted to establish an official definition of what qualifies as a data center. At an earlier meeting last month, they also added data centers to a list of prohibited facilities in office and industrial zones.

The new ballot measure proposes expanding the prohibition. It would effectively ban data centers in all of the city.

Residents weigh in

Andrew Yip, an Alhambra resident and an organizer with the group SGV Progressive Action, spoke about the importance of ballot language during Monday’s council meeting.

Yip said the name of Monterey Park's June ballot measure — Measure NDC, which stood for "No Data Center" — left some data center opponents unsure about whether to vote yes or no.

“It was very confusing,” Yip said. “I encourage the city to consider a different acronym if possible, maybe BAN, so people know to vote yes on a ban.”

The backstory

Local citizens and groups like No Data Centers San Gabriel Valley and No Data Center in Monterey Park have been organizing to oppose the construction of data centers and other infrastructure that supports them, such as battery energy storage systems.

Plans for a proposed data center in Monterey Park were pulled in March, and the Covina Planning Commission voted down a proposed storage system in June following public input.

What’s next

Alhambra voters will decide the fate of data centers in the city in the general election on Nov. 3. The ban needs a simple majority of support from local voters in order to pass.

How to keep tabs on the Alhambra City Council

The Alhambra City Council tends to meet a few times per month, generally on Mondays. Meetings typically start at 6 p.m.

Here’s how you can follow along:

• Attend in person: The council meets at City Hall, Council Chambers, 111 S. First St., Alhambra.
• Watch the live broadcast.
• Here’s how to submit a comment or contact the council.