The Geo Group operates the Aurora Immigration Processing Center under contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nine immigration detainees sued the company in 2014, claiming they were forced to perform unpaid housekeeping duties under threat of punishment in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The class action centers on allegations that detainees were required to clean common areas, bathrooms, and housing units for $1 per day or less, with sanctions including solitary confinement for those who refused.
In its motion for summary judgment, Geo Group argues it should receive the same qualified immunity protections as government employees because ICE "closely supervised" its operations and required compliance with federal detention standards. "GEO is an agent of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting at the government's direction and subject to its supervision," the company stated in court filings. U.S. District Judge John L. Kane will consider whether the Supreme Court's 2012 Filarsky decision extending qualified immunity to certain private contractors applies to detention facilities.
The case has a complex procedural history, traveling to the U.S. Supreme Court on questions of government contractor immunity before returning to district court in March 2026. Geo Group initially sought protection under the Yearsley doctrine for government contractors, but the Supreme Court clarified that qualified immunity provides broader protections. The company filed its immunity motion after the court lifted a years-long stay, arguing it can raise the defense at any time before trial.
The ruling could have significant implications for private prison companies facing similar lawsuits across the country. Several other circuits have reached different conclusions about whether private detention contractors can claim qualified immunity, and this decision may influence how courts balance contractor liability against government supervision. Trial in the case is scheduled for later this year, making the immunity question urgent for Geo Group's litigation strategy.