The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of a private prison contractor’s bid to immediately appeal a lower court’s ruling in a long-running dispute over $1-a-day wages paid to immigrant detainees at a federal detention center.
Why It Matters
During oral arguments in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, the justices examined whether the company, which operates detention centers for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is entitled to an early appeal under the collateral-order doctrine.
The case stems from allegations that GEO required detainees at its Aurora, Colorado facility to perform cleaning and other tasks for as little as $1 per day under a voluntary work program.
The question before the Court is not whether the work program violated labor laws, but whether GEO can claim the federal government’s immunity from certain lawsuits and avoid further litigation while that claim is unresolved.
What To Know
Alejandro Menocal and other former detainees have brought a class-action lawsuit against GEO Group, Inc., alleging forced labor and unjust enrichment.
The GEO Group argued that, as a government contractor, it is entitled to immunity from litigation.
GEO contends it is protected from liability under the Yearsley doctrine, which shields contractors acting at the government’s direction, and argues that lower courts’ rejection of that claim can be reviewed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine.
Menocal and his attorneys counter that Yearsley provides a defense at trial, not immunity from suit, and that the denials by lower courts should not be appealed before a final judgment.
The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the ability of individuals to hold government contractors accountable and has broader implications for public oversight of privately run government programs.
In the argument on November 10, GEO’s lawyer Dominic Draye said that contractors following government instructions are immune from suit because “they are doing the sovereign’s work.”
Several justices expressed doubts about that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas asked GEO’s counsel to “show us the language in Yearsley that indicates this immunity from suit.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned, “Why isn’t Yearsley better understood as a defense than an immunity?”
“The Court has consistently said that it’s an immunity and an immunity from suit,” Draye said.
GEO contends that, under its contract with ICE, it carried out the government’s work and therefore should be treated as the government for immunity purposes. The company argues that denying contractors the immunity incentive could deter firms from engaging in government work.
The lawsuit was brought in 2014 by former ICE detainee Alejandro Menocal, who alleges forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act at GEO’s Aurora, Colorado facility. He claims detainees were paid as little as $1 a day for other “voluntary” work. Plaintiffs claim the program violated federal anti-trafficking laws and enriched the company. A district court ruled in 2022 that GEO was not immune because ICE had not instructed it to pay detainees a specific wage or compel labor.
Detainees in ICE custody can participate in voluntary work programs within detention facilities, according to a 2025 ICE policy paper reviewed by Newsweek. Under ICE’s detention standards, detainees working at a facility must be paid a minimum of $1 pay per day, and those facilities are required to have a system to ensure owed wages are paid before transfer or release.
In 2024, The GEO Group reported total revenues of $2.42 billion and a net income of $31.9 million.
What People Are Saying
Amnesty International USA’s director for refugee and migrant rights, Amy Fischer, told Newsweek: “It is both exploitative and degrading, and it has no place in a society that claims to value human rights and justice. People who are working should be paid a living wage, and $1 a day falls shockingly short of that principle of fairness and dignity.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said at the hearing: “GEO’s argument boils down to the claim that Yearsley is an immunity from suit for contractors who can’t show that history and policy warrant immunity. That doesn’t make sense as a matter of common sense.”
What Happens Next
A ruling is expected later this term.
