GEO Group Seeks Derivative Sovereign Immunity in Supreme Court Case

(AURORA, COLORADO) The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could reshape how lawsuits against private immigration detention operators are handled nationwide, after lower courts in Colorado refused to shield The GEO Group, Inc. from claims brought by detainees at its Aurora facility. The company seeks derivative sovereign immunity, a legal protection that, if applied, would block damages suits tied to work programs and discipline practices alleged to have coerced detainees into labor.

The case began with a 2014 class action filed by detainees, including Alejandro Menocal, who say they were forced to clean housing areas and perform other tasks for little or no pay under threat of solitary confinement or loss of basic privileges.

Core legal question

At the core is whether a government contractor running an immigrant detention center can claim the same legal immunity the federal government enjoys when the contractor says it followed federal instructions.

GEO points to the Supreme Court’s 1940 ruling in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., which held that a contractor is not liable for acts the government authorized and directed. GEO argues that its work at the Aurora facility—home to hundreds of detainees held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—was carried out under ICE contracts and standards. The company says allowing claims to proceed would let activists sue contractors to attack federal policy by proxy.

Plaintiffs say Yearsley does not cover unlawful acts. They contend derivative sovereign immunity only applies if:

• The contractor followed clear government directions, and
• Those directions themselves were legal.

They argue federal law bans forced labor regardless of a contractor’s agreement with ICE, and that detention standards do not require threats or solitary confinement to make people work.

Allegations in the lawsuit

The detainees’ class action alleges:

• Forced labor in violation of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
• Unjust enrichment under Colorado law.

Key factual claims include:

• Janitorial “volunteer” tasks were not voluntary because refusal risked punishment, including solitary confinement.
• Some detainees were paid $1 per day, which plaintiffs say is far below fair compensation and was paired with threats that made the work coercive.
• Basic living conditions were allegedly tied to compliance with work demands, creating pressure that plaintiffs describe as coercive.

The plaintiffs argue GEO cannot hide behind government contracts when those contracts do not require coercion and when federal law bans forced labor.

Lower courts and procedural history

• A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, declining to dismiss on immunity grounds.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied GEO’s bid for an immediate appeal on the immunity question.
• GEO petitioned the Supreme Court, which accepted review to decide whether—and how—derivative sovereign immunity applies to a private prison company operating an ICE facility.

The case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, with filings available through the court’s official site at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Positions of the parties

GEO’s arguments:

• The dispute is a test of how the federal government carries out detention—a core sovereign function—through private partners.
• Without immunity, courts would second-guess contractor decisions and expose firms to large damages awards.
• That would increase costs and make companies reluctant to accept federal contracts, especially in politically sensitive areas like immigrant detention.
• GEO also says it followed ICE’s written rules and that any work programs were approved features of detention operations, not rogue practices.

Plaintiffs’ counterarguments:

• Yearsley does not shield unlawful acts.
• Derivative sovereign immunity requires both clear government direction and legality of those directions.
• Federal law forbids forced labor irrespective of contractual terms with ICE.
• The complaint describes coercive practices, including threats and punishment, that cross the line from administration into unlawful coercion.

“If proven, plaintiffs say choices were shaped by fear of isolation or losing access to basic goods, a claim that could meet the legal test for forced labor.”

Broader stakes and potential effects

This case has implications beyond Aurora because private contractors run immigration detention centers across the United States 🇺🇸 under federal supervision.

Possible outcomes and ripple effects:

• If GEO prevails, other operators could cite the ruling to end suits early by invoking derivative sovereign immunity, narrowing detainees’ paths to seek damages.
• If the court sides with detainees, contractors could face more litigation over pay practices, discipline, and facility sanitation responsibilities. That could prompt changes in federal contracting and oversight.

Advocacy groups and several legal scholars have filed briefs warning that a broad immunity rule would remove a key check on mistreatment in civil detention (reported by VisaVerge.com).

Legal and doctrinal context

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to define the boundaries of Yearsley immunity for modern government contracting. Relevant points include:

• Yearsley (1940) involved a river project—not detention—and the doctrine has seldom been applied where people’s liberty is at stake.
• The court may consider whether operating an ICE facility—a sensitive public function—changes the analysis.
• A crucial question: can contractor conduct that allegedly violates a federal statute be insulated simply because a government contract exists?
• A narrow ruling might hinge on how closely ICE directed the specific work practices at issue.

Role of the federal government and contract drafting

The federal government’s role will be scrutinized. ICE:

• Sets performance standards.
• Can audit and penalize contractors.
• Leaves day-to-day operations to companies like GEO.

Potential implications depending on the Court’s emphasis:

• If the Court stresses federal control, contractors may gain broader protection when they can show detailed agency direction.
• If the Court stresses statutory limits, contractors may be safe only when their conduct matches lawful, explicit instructions.

Either result could influence how ICE writes and enforces detention standards and may push the agency to tighten contract language to avoid future disputes.

Practical impacts on litigation and detainees

For detainees and their families, this case is about daily life in detention and the thin line between chores that keep units clean and labor policies that punish refusal.

Key practical consequences:

• If derivative sovereign immunity applies, cases may be dismissed before discovery, cutting off fact-finding about how detention policies work on the ground.
• If the doctrine does not apply, plaintiffs may gain access to internal records and testimony, allowing disputes over pay and sanctions to go to juries.
• The outcome will guide trial courts on when to dismiss suits against federal contractors and how to treat alleged abuses in immigrant detention when a private company operates under a federal contract.

Until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, the Aurora case remains a litmus test for how the legal system treats alleged mistreatment in immigrant detention when a private company and federal contract are at the center of the defense.