Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal

Background

A private detention contractor in Aurora, Colorado (GEO Group) ran a facility under contract with U.S. immigration authorities. A former detainee, Alejandro Menocal, sued on behalf of fellow detainees. He challenged two work policies: a Sanitation Policy that required unpaid cleaning with punishments up to 72 hours in solitary, and a Voluntary Work Program that paid $1 per day. Menocal alleged the sanitation rule was forced labor under federal law and that the low‑pay program resulted in unjust enrichment under Colorado law. The district court found GEO’s government contract did not authorize those policies and denied GEO’s claim to avoid trial.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Yearsley—an old decision that protects contractors when the government lawfully authorizes their conduct—is a full immunity from suit or only a defense against liability. The Justices explained that an immunity would let a defendant avoid any trial, while a merits defense only argues the conduct was lawful and can be decided on appeal after trial. Because Yearsley applies only when a contractor acted under a lawful authorization and stayed within its scope, the Court concluded Yearsley is a merits defense, not an immunity. Therefore a pretrial denial of Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable.

Real world impact

This ruling means private contractors cannot pause lawsuits simply by claiming Yearsley before trial; such claims can be reviewed later on appeal if the contractor is found liable. Detainees’ claims about unpaid work and other similar suits may proceed to full litigation. There remains a narrow process for immediate review if the district court certifies it, but that did not occur here.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices agreed with the result but emphasized different reasons: one declined to expand collateral‑order doctrine, another applied a public‑interest test to deny immediate review.