In the city of McFarland, a detention facility quietly began operations in April 2026. The facility, known as the Central Valley Annex, became the second immigration detention center in McFarland, bringing the total number of detention facilities to four in Kern County and eight across California. Its reopening and transition into immigration detention operations have led to widespread confusion among residents about whether the facility was newly approved.
The Central Valley Annex, which adds approximately 700 detention beds, previously operated under a federal contract with the U.S. Marshals Service. After that contract expired, the facility was transferred to the GEO Group, a private prison corporation, and began operating under an ICE detention contract.
City officials say McFarland was not legally required to hold a new public forum regarding the facility because the property’s detention-related use had already been approved years earlier during proceedings connected to the Golden State Annex proposal in 2019.
“The Central Valley Annex has operated in McFarland since at least 1996. Recent reporting has misconstrued this as the opening of a new facility, when it is an existing, permitted use. The facility operates under an approved Conditional Use Permit that allows for detention-related uses, including federal operations. As such, no new public notice, hearing, or vote was required for the recent transition from a U.S. Marshals contract to an ICE contract,” said Diego Viramontes, the McFarland City Manager, in a statement.
In 2019, the Golden State Annex (GSA) was proposed as a new immigration detention facility, sparking backlash from immigrant rights groups and local advocates. In 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the City of McFarland, alleging officials violated California’s Brown Act during the approval process.
The Brown Act requires local government bodies to conduct business openly and provide the public with meaningful opportunities to participate in meetings and hearings.
“All of the community engagement or the public hearings happened online through Zoom. And there were a lot of challenges with that… Which was wild because there was a violation of the Brown Act. There was not adequate access or setup for people to participate. So, anyways, they proceeded with a Zoom public comments and unfortunately, they approved it,” said Rosa Lopez, senior policy advocate and organizer with the ACLU.
Ultimately, the ACLU lost their lawsuit, allowing the operations of the GEO Group to continue. However, due to the limited information that was provided during the initial public forum, it has led to major confusion for the residents of McFarland even six years later.
“Somehow I have been a little confused because I remember six years ago that someone mentioned that there was going to be a detention center, but there was no meeting…. I was not [aware]. I knew about the first one just because of the media coverage, not because they let us know… It seems like it was almost done without the public’s opinion, and I just don’t feel like that was right,” said lifelong resident Alma Pena.
In a report released by the Department of Justice (DOJ), inspectors identified 17 deficiencies during their September 2025 visit to GSA, causing the facility’s rating to drop from “good” in 2023 to “adequate.” The report cited concerns involving delays in intake processing, medical screenings and care, detainee classification procedures, untimely responses to grievances, and issues related to clothing distribution, raising new questions about conditions inside the facility and how the newly expanded detention operations are being managed.
“I would like to know how they are being treated because I believe they should be treated good, the best, to their capacity,” said Pena.
Despite the lawsuit’s outcome, Lopez said residents still have the ability to pressure local officials for greater accountability and transparency.
“They [city representatives] have power, and it’s just a matter of the community holding them accountable to ensure that they are exercising their authority to represent the community need. And so yet, the community should still be going to the city council and demanding for answers,” said Lopez. “The community still has influence, still has power. It’s just a matter of continuing to demand answers and accountability from their local representatives, from the city council and demanding for answers.”
