The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled unanimously against GEO Group, a major private prison contractor, in a closely watched case involving immigration detainees who allege they were forced to work for $1 a day at a detention facility in Colorado. The decision does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, but it represents a significant procedural setback for the Florida-based company. At issue is whether GEO Group can immediately appeal a lower court’s refusal to dismiss the case on sovereign immunity grounds. Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan said that if GEO is ultimately found liable, it may then pursue an appeal, but it must first allow the case to proceed through the normal trial process. All nine justices agreed with the judgment, although Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed differing views about aspects of the legal reasoning. The ruling reinforces the principle that government contractors are generally subject to the same procedural rules as other litigants.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2014, centers on the Aurora, Colorado, immigration detention facility operated by GEO Group. Detainees allege they were required to perform janitorial work and other essential tasks—such as cleaning common areas and maintaining facilities—either without pay or for as little as $1 per day. According to the plaintiffs, this labor was effectively compulsory because the meals provided were inadequate, leaving detainees with little choice but to participate in the work program to afford supplemental food and basic necessities. The suit contends that this arrangement amounted to forced labor and unjust enrichment under federal and state law. GEO has denied wrongdoing, asserting that its voluntary work program complies with federal immigration detention standards and that participants are compensated at rates approved by federal authorities. The company has also argued that such programs are common in detention settings and are intended to provide structure and modest income for detainees.

Central to GEO’s legal defense is the claim that it should share in the federal government’s sovereign immunity because it operates detention facilities under contract with federal agencies. After a lower court rejected that argument, the company sought to bypass the ordinary litigation process by asking the Supreme Court to allow an immediate appeal. The justices declined that request. Justice Kagan emphasized that the Court’s long-standing “final judgment rule” generally permits appeals only after a case has been fully resolved in the trial court. While certain exceptions exist, the Court found that GEO’s circumstances did not qualify. “If eventually found liable, GEO may of course appeal … but GEO must wait until then,” Kagan wrote. By insisting that GEO proceed through trial before seeking appellate review, the Court underscored that private contractors—even those performing government functions—do not automatically receive special procedural privileges. The ruling leaves the substantive claims for further proceedings in the lower courts.

Attorneys representing the Colorado detainees praised the decision as a reaffirmation of equal accountability under the law. Jennifer Bennett, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the unanimous ruling confirms a straightforward rule: government contractors like GEO are not entitled to sovereign immunity and must abide by the same “one case, one appeal” framework that governs all litigants. The decision comes amid broader scrutiny of private detention providers and their labor practices. GEO Group is one of the largest private corrections and detention companies in the United States, managing or owning approximately 77,000 beds across 98 facilities nationwide. Among its recent projects is a new federal immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey, where Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested during a protest in May 2025; charges against him were later dropped. Similar lawsuits have emerged elsewhere, including in Washington state, where GEO was ordered to pay more than $23 million in a related detainee wage dispute. It remains unclear whether that ruling is currently under appeal.

The Supreme Court’s decision unfolds against a backdrop of separate but related legal challenges involving federal immigration authorities. In a distinct case, a federal judge in Minnesota found the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt for violating a court order concerning the transfer of a detainee identified only as “Fernando T.” U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud ruled that federal officials failed to comply with his directive prohibiting Fernando’s transfer while his habeas corpus petition was under review. According to court filings, Fernando, a Mexican citizen, was transferred from Minnesota to a facility in El Paso, Texas, and later released there without his belongings. Judge Tostrud ordered DHS to facilitate Fernando’s return to Minnesota and to compensate him for his return flight. The government acknowledged in a letter to the court that the release in Texas did not comply with the January 20 order and offered an apology, with a department attorney stating he was “deeply remorseful” for the violation.

Judge Tostrud sharply criticized the government’s explanation for the noncompliance, including assertions that a winter snowstorm had disrupted travel plans. In his ruling, he wrote that the government’s submission “includes no legal argument, authority, or other response” to the detainee’s request for compensatory sanctions and that the asserted justifications did not demonstrate an inability to comply with the order. The episode highlights ongoing tensions between federal immigration enforcement operations and judicial oversight. Taken together with the Supreme Court’s ruling against GEO Group, these developments signal increased scrutiny of both private detention contractors and federal agencies involved in immigration enforcement. While the high court’s decision does not determine whether GEO’s wage practices were unlawful, it ensures that the claims will be tested in court rather than dismissed at an early procedural stage. As litigation proceeds in Colorado and related cases continue elsewhere, the broader debate over detainee labor, contractor accountability, and the limits of sovereign immunity is likely to remain at the forefront of immigration and constitutional law discussions.