By Morgan Chilson, Kansas Reflector
LEAVENWORTH — A Kansas district court barred CoreCivic Wednesday from reopening its shuttered prison until the company goes through Leavenworth’s development process to receive a special use permit.
Judge John Bryant, Leavenworth County District Court, was unconvinced by arguments from CoreCivic attorneys that the company was grandfathered into the city’s zoning codes and did not need a special use permit to hold U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees.
He ruled in favor of the city of Leavenworth, which had asked for a temporary restraining order to stop the reopening of CoreCivic’s prison, the Midwest Regional Reception Center.
After nearly two hours of arguments in front of a courtroom packed with Leavenworth city officials and community activists, Bryant made an immediate ruling. He said his decision was not affected by CoreCivic’s history in the community, which has been openly criticized by former employees, inmates and residents, and in submitted court documents.
The request for a restraining order was a procedural issue, he said.
“The posture of this case is a little bit different in that the city has acted here because CoreCivic has stated its intent to ignore or not give any effect to the March ‘25 administrative decision,” Bryant said, referring to the city’s requirement that CoreCivic get a special use permit before reopening.
Bryant said that if CoreCivic disagreed, company attorneys could have gone through the Kansas judicial review process to argue zoning decisions. Such a move needed to be made within 30 days, he said, and CoreCivic did not take that action.
“We are reviewing the court’s decision and considering next steps,” said CoreCivic spokesman Steve Owen in response to emailed questions. “We maintain the position that our facility, which we’ve operated for almost 30 years, does not require a special use permit to care for detainees in partnership with ICE. We look forward to presenting our arguments to the court.”
He did not answer questions about whether the company is housing any ICE detainees in Leavenworth or what is happening at the facility, which had a parking lot full of cars on Wednesday.
Leavenworth city manager Scott Peterson was pleased with the court’s decision. Although CoreCivic could continue litigation on the issue, he said the company was welcome o go through the city’s planning and zoning process to get a special use permit.
Joseph Hatley, attorney for Leavenworth, said the next step today would be writing the temporary restraining order and then circulating it to all parties.
“If we have a disagreement about it, the judge can resolve the disagreement, but essentially it will say they cannot house detainees without a special use permit,” he said.
The typical special use permit process in Leavenworth takes about three months, Peterson said, in part to allow time to set up public hearings to allow Leavenworth area residents to have input.
In its motion to the court asking for the temporary restraining order, the city’s attorneys laid out significant issues they had when CoreCivic previously operated a prison in Leavenworth. The national private prison company operated the Leavenworth Detention Center from 1986 to 2021, when CoreCivic’s federal contract was not renewed.
The city opened its petition with quotes from a 2021 court transcript. U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson called CoreCivic’s Leavenworth prison a “hell hole.”
“All that’s going on there and causing trauma to everybody – guards are being traumatized. Guards have been almost killed. Detainees are being traumatized with assaults and batteries, and not long ago a detainee was killed. So I’m well aware of the situation at CoreCivic and very troubled by it as well,” Robinson said at the time.
In the petition, the city also noted the Leavenworth Police Department had issues with CoreCivic in the final years before the prison closed, citing roadblocks when investigating violent crimes within the facility, lack of planning for major crises such as riots or hostage situations and difficulty getting access.
The city’s special use permitting process would allow the city to set guidelines that would address those situations, Peterson said.
“Cities generally have broad abilities to impose additional requirements on a special use permit, so long as they are applicable to the use that we’re discussing,” he said. “Obviously, property owners are protected in some regards in that we can’t make outlandish requirements.”
If CoreCivic would disagree with city requirements, Peterson added, they could then access the judicial review process to argue those points.
CoreCivic had initially applied for a special use permit in March but withdrew that application. Peterson said the process had begun and CoreCivic and city officials were meeting.
“I would note that with internal conversations the city was having with CoreCivic, we were in agreement with the things the city was going to propose in terms of protecting the city services moving forward,” he said.
In the hearing, CoreCivic attorney Taylor Hausmann said the company withdrew from those proceedings because the city did not schedule a hearing within a 60-day period, as required.
“It became clear to CoreCivic that there was not a cooperative relationship happening there, and thus CoreCivic fell back on its position that it was not required to have it (the special use permit), and that this was not going to work, to move together cooperatively,” she said.
City officials are adamant that the city is not stalling the prison’s reopening.
“From the perspective of the city, this was never about stopping something from happening,” said David Waters, an attorney for the city. “This is about following the city’s rules and regulations and going through those processes, giving everybody the same fair hearing that we afford all special use permits.”
Esmie Tseng, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, attended the hearing. She was pleased the judge heard the city’s concerns but is worried about what will happen in the future.
“I think that’s the core of the case,” she said. “There is a lot of distrust. And CoreCivic definitely hammered very hard on past conduct should not be an indicator of future conduct, but I don’t think we have to rely on past conduct.
We have cases across the country of CoreCivic’s current conduct that sort of speak to concerns about local distress, about their business practices, about shortcuts,” Tseng said.
