Supreme Court Rejects Immunity Shield for Private ICE Contractor

The U.S. Supreme Court this week handed down a unanimous decision rejecting an effort by a major private prison contractor to shield itself from liability in a long-running lawsuit tied to immigration detention facilities.

At the center of the case is The GEO Group, a Florida-based company that contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to operate detention centers across the country. The justices ruled that GEO cannot invoke sovereign immunity simply because it performs services under a federal contract. That decision now clears the way for immigration detainees to continue pursuing claims in federal court.

The litigation stems from a 2014 lawsuit filed by detainees at a facility in Aurora, Colorado. The plaintiffs alleged they were compelled to perform janitorial and other work for as little as $1 per day. The class action was initiated by detainee Alejandro Menocal, who challenged two internal policies GEO allegedly used to reduce labor costs. According to the complaint, those policies violated federal prohibitions against forced labor and Colorado laws governing unjust enrichment.

GEO sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that as a government contractor operating under ICE authority, it should share in the federal government’s sovereign immunity protections. A district court rejected that argument, and the case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court.

Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Elena Kagan stated, “Nothing in the ICE contract’s terms instructed GEO to adopt the work rules at issue.” The ruling makes clear that private entities cannot assume automatic immunity merely because they contract with the federal government.

Kagan further noted, “If eventually found liable, GEO may of course appeal … But GEO must wait until then,” underscoring that the company must see the case through the normal judicial process before seeking higher review.

All nine justices agreed with the outcome, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito differed on aspects of the legal reasoning.

An attorney representing the detainees praised the ruling. “The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision reaffirms a straightforward rule: government contractors like GEO do not qualify for sovereign immunity and must follow the same ‘one case, one appeal’ principle that governs every other litigant,” attorney Jennifer Bennett said, per the AP.

The GEO Group is one of the largest private detention operators in the United States, managing or owning roughly 77,000 beds across 98 facilities nationwide. Among its holdings is a federal immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey, the site of a high-profile protest in May 2025 that resulted in the arrest of Democrat Mayor Ras Baraka. Charges against Baraka were later dropped.

Legal analysts note that the Supreme Court’s ruling could energize similar lawsuits already filed in other jurisdictions. In Washington state, for example, a court previously ordered GEO to pay more than $23 million in a related case. It remains unclear whether that decision is under appeal.

The ruling arrives amid ongoing legal friction between the federal government and lower courts over immigration enforcement. In a separate matter, a federal judge appointed by current President Donald J. Trump found the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt over the handling of a detainee transfer.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eric C. Tostrud in Minnesota ordered the federal government to compensate a detainee identified only as “Fernando T.” for the cost of his return flight to Minnesota. According to the court, Fernando, a Mexican citizen, had been released from a Texas detention facility in late January without his belongings. The judge raised concerns that federal officials had not adequately explained why those items were withheld.

Fernando had filed a habeas corpus petition on January 19 seeking release or a bond hearing. The next day, he requested a temporary restraining order to prevent his transfer while the petition was pending. Judge Tostrud issued an order barring the government from moving him. Nevertheless, federal authorities reported that he had been transferred to a facility in El Paso, Texas, on January 22.

Together, these developments highlight the mounting legal scrutiny surrounding immigration detention policies and contractor practices. As courts continue to weigh the boundaries between federal authority and private accountability, further litigation appears all but certain.