Pull to refresh
Logo
Private prison companies face wave of forced-labor lawsuits from immigration detainees

Private prison companies face wave of forced-labor lawsuits from immigration detainees

Rule Changes

Supreme Court unanimously rejects GEO Group's immunity bid, clearing the path for a decade-old class action representing 60,000 detainees

February 25th, 2026: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against GEO Group

Overview

Updated May 29

GEO Group has spent more than a decade fighting a lawsuit from roughly 60,000 immigration detainees at its Aurora, Colorado facility. They allege they were forced to perform janitorial work for one dollar a day — or nothing — under threat of solitary confinement. On February 25, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against GEO's immunity claim; Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the company "must wait" for trial.

The ruling does not decide whether GEO actually forced detainees to work. But it eliminates a shield the detention industry had hoped to use: that companies operating under federal contracts inherit the government's immunity. With GEO generating roughly half its projected $3 billion in 2026 revenue from ICE contracts, and similar lawsuits pending in California, Washington, and Georgia, the decision exposes the industry to litigation over detainee labor practices.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

~60,000
Detainees in class
Approximate number of people detained at GEO's Aurora facility over ten years who are represented in the lawsuit
$1/day
Alleged wage rate
What detainees were paid under GEO's Voluntary Work Program; many received nothing at all for mandatory sanitation duties
9-0
Supreme Court vote
All nine justices agreed GEO cannot immediately appeal the denial of its government-contractor immunity defense
$23.2M
Washington state verdict
Amount a jury ordered GEO to pay in a parallel detainee-labor case at its Tacoma, Washington facility
$2.9–3.1B
GEO projected 2026 revenue
Nearly half comes from ICE contracts, making the company heavily exposed to detention-labor litigation

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

December 1986 February 2026

12 events Latest: February 25th, 2026 · 7 months ago Showing 8 of 12
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. Aurora detention facility opens

    Background

    The Immigration and Naturalization Service (predecessor to ICE) awards GEO Group a contract to operate a 150-bed detention facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Scenarios

1

GEO found liable at trial, ordered to pay hundreds of millions

Possible

Discussed by: Legal analysts at Mayer Brown and Gibson Dunn; Towards Justice attorneys

With the immunity defense resolved, the case proceeds to trial in Colorado on the merits. The class of 60,000 detainees prevails on the forced-labor claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, resulting in damages that dwarf the $23.2 million Washington verdict. GEO's proven business model of using low-cost detainee labor becomes a quantifiable liability. The verdict triggers settlements in parallel cases in California and elsewhere, and prompts GEO to overhaul its detention labor practices nationwide.

2

GEO settles before trial to contain legal exposure

Likely

Discussed by: Government contracts attorneys at Covington and Womble Bond Dickinson; financial analysts covering GEO stock

Facing the prospect of a trial with 60,000 class members and no immunity shield, GEO negotiates a settlement — potentially modeled on CoreCivic's "Detained Worker Bill of Rights" agreement at Stewart Detention Center, but with a significant monetary component. This path becomes more likely if GEO's stock price continues to decline or if its ICE contract negotiations are affected by the litigation overhang. A settlement would limit precedent-setting but still reshape industry labor practices.

3

GEO wins at trial on the merits, vindicating its labor program

Possible

Discussed by: The Federalist Society's analysis of the case; GEO Group's investor communications

GEO prevails at trial by arguing its sanitation requirements were standard facility maintenance obligations, not forced labor, and that the Voluntary Work Program was genuinely voluntary. The company demonstrates that ICE detention standards permit such programs and that detainees were not coerced within the legal definition of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. A win would reinforce the existing detainee labor model across the private detention industry.

4

Ruling triggers legislative or regulatory action on detainee labor standards

Unlikely

Discussed by: Georgetown Immigration Law Journal; the Southern Poverty Law Center; American Immigration Council

The Supreme Court ruling, combined with verdicts and settlements in parallel cases, generates enough public attention that Congress or ICE itself revises detention labor standards. This could mean mandatory minimum wage requirements for detainee work programs, clearer limits on what constitutes "voluntary" labor in detention settings, or requirements for independent oversight of private facility labor practices. Such action would fundamentally alter the economics of private immigration detention.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1940

Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. (1940)

The Supreme Court ruled that a private construction company building levees on the Missouri River under a federal Army Corps of Engineers contract could not be sued for erosion damage to a neighboring landowner's property. The Court held that when a contractor acts under valid government authorization without exceeding its scope, it shares the government's own immunity from suit.

Then

The contractor avoided liability for property damage caused during federally directed construction work.

Now

Created the doctrine of "derivative sovereign immunity" that government contractors have relied on for 86 years to shield themselves from lawsuits. The doctrine has been invoked by military contractors, healthcare providers, and — as in this case — private prison operators.

Why this matters now

GEO Group built its entire defense on this 1940 precedent, arguing it should inherit the government's immunity because it operates under an ICE contract. The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling did not overturn Yearsley but sharply limited its procedural power: it is a defense to be argued at trial, not a get-out-of-court card.

September 2017 – January 2025

Nwauzor v. GEO Group — Washington state verdict (2021)

Washington's Attorney General sued GEO Group for paying detainees at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma as little as $1 per day, violating state minimum wage law. Lead plaintiff Goodluck Nwauzor, a Nigerian-born asylum seeker, worked cleaning showers for $1 per day during his eight months in detention. A federal jury unanimously found GEO liable and awarded $17.3 million in back wages to over 10,000 detainees, with a judge adding $5.9 million in unjust enrichment damages.

Then

GEO was ordered to pay $23.2 million and to pay all workers at least Washington's minimum wage going forward.

Now

The Ninth Circuit upheld the verdict in January 2025, establishing that federal immigration policy does not shield private operators from state wage laws. Nwauzor was granted asylum and permanent residency.

Why this matters now

This is the closest precedent for what GEO faces in the Colorado case — but the Colorado class is six times larger (60,000 versus 10,000 detainees) and brings federal anti-trafficking claims rather than state wage claims, potentially yielding far greater damages.

January 2018 – January 2025

Barrientos v. CoreCivic — Stewart Detention Center settlement (2025)

Detainees at CoreCivic's Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia sued under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, alleging they were forced to work in the kitchen cooking meals for up to 2,000 people daily for as little as $4 to $5 per shift. Plaintiff Wilhen Hill Barrientos was placed in solitary confinement for over a month after filing a grievance about being forced to work while sick.

Then

CoreCivic settled on the eve of trial, agreeing to implement a "Detained Worker Bill of Rights" informing detained workers they can refuse to work at any time.

Now

The settlement established the first formal worker-rights document in private immigration detention, creating a template that other facilities may be pressured to adopt.

Why this matters now

CoreCivic's decision to settle rather than risk trial shows how the legal landscape has shifted against private detention operators. GEO, now stripped of its immunity defense by the Supreme Court, faces the same calculus with a much larger class.

Sources

(12)