On Monday, September 29, 2025, Prism reported that a U.S. appeals court decision to keep Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center open is raising ethical questions regarding Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lagoa authored the majority opinion in the 2-1 ruling on September 4, which stayed a district court order to shut down the facility.
The controversy stems from Lagoa’s connections to Florida’s political and legal landscape, particularly her marriage to attorney Paul Huck, a partner at Lawson Huck Gonzalez, a politically influential conservative law firm in Florida. While the firm is not directly involved in the “Alligator Alcatraz” lawsuit, it has secured millions in state contracts from other legal battles. Critics argue that this connection creates an appearance of bias, especially considering Lagoa’s past shortlisting for the U.S. Supreme Court under the Trump administration.
The “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center, officially known as the Everglades detention center, was ordered to close by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on August 21, who cited evidence of harm to endangered species, including Florida panthers, and the lack of legally required environmental reviews. However, the appeals court’s stay has allowed the resumption of operations while the appeals process continues. Conservationists argue that the facility is causing irreparable harm to the Everglades and its endangered species.
Some individuals have called for Lagoa’s recusal from the case. Thomas Kennedy, a consultant with Florida Immigrant Coalition, stated that her failure to recuse herself erodes public trust.
Judicial ethics rules emphasize the importance of impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. Federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges outline conditions for recusal, including personal bias, prior involvement as a lawyer or government official in the matter, financial interest in the outcome, or similar interests held by a spouse or close family member. While it’s not evident that Huck or his firm has a direct financial interest in this specific case, the broader financial ties to the state are raising concerns.
Lagoa, during her 2019 Senate Judiciary hearing, acknowledged the importance of judicial impartiality and pledged to recuse herself from cases where her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including matters involving her husband or his law firm.
Charles G. Geyh, an Indiana University School of Law professor and judicial ethics expert, explained that federal law mandates disqualification when a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. While noting that recusal decisions are fact-specific, he cautioned that public perception of fairness matters and that a clear conflict of interest could damage public trust in the judiciary.
Lagoa has faced similar ethical concerns in the past. In 2020, she and Judge Robert Luck were criticized for not recusing themselves from a voting rights case after hearing arguments on the same issue as Florida Supreme Court justices.
Florida State Representative Anna Eskamani said Lagoa’s role fits into a broader pattern of political court-stacking. Yareliz Mendez-Zamora, a policy coordinator with American Friends Service Committee, echoed those concerns, calling the fact that Lagoa did not recuse herself “ridiculous.”
Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates are expressing concerns about the consequences of reopening “Alligator Alcatraz” for detainees. Conservation groups have vowed to continue their legal fight against the detention center.
Source: Prism
