GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal et al. (24-758)
- Term
- OT 2025
- Argued
- 2025-11-10
- Decided
- 2026-02-25
- Vote
- 9-0 for Menocal
- Opinion
- Justice Kagan
- Majority
- Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Thomas
The case in brief
Facts
GEO Group runs a private immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, under a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Alejandro Menocal, a former detainee, brought a class action (a suit on behalf of a group) claiming that GEO's work policies for detainees broke a federal ban on forced labor and Colorado's law against unjust enrichment. GEO argued that the case should be thrown out under a 1940 Supreme Court decision, Yearsley, which says a federal contractor cannot be held liable for conduct the government lawfully authorized and directed. The trial court disagreed, finding that GEO's contract did not tell it to adopt those policies, so a trial was needed. GEO appealed right away, but the federal appeals court for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal, saying it had no power to hear it at that stage.
Question
Can a federal contractor appeal immediately, before trial, when a trial court refuses to give it protection under Yearsley, or must it wait until the case is over?
Conclusion
The Court ruled 9-0 for Menocal and upheld the appeals court's dismissal, in an opinion by Justice Kagan. The Court held that Yearsley gives contractors a defense on the merits (a way to show they acted lawfully and are not liable), not an immunity (a right not to face a lawsuit at all), because its protection ends when a contractor acts unlawfully. Since a wrong ruling on such a defense can be corrected on appeal after the case ends, GEO must wait until the trial court finishes before appealing. Justice Thomas joined only parts of the opinion and wrote separately, and Justice Alito agreed only with the result, arguing the key issue is whether waiting would harm important constitutional or public-policy interests.
Opinion of the Court
Authored by Justice Kagan (9,277 words total).
Volume 607 U. S. Part 2 Pages 438–464
THE SUPREME COURT February 25, 2026
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
GEO GROUP, INC. v. MENOCAL et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 24–758. Argued November 10, 2025—Decided February 25, 2026 Petitioner GEO Group operates a private detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, under a contract with U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Respondent Alejandro Menocal, a former detainee at the Aurora facility, initiated this class action, alleging GEO's work policies for detainees violate a federal bar on forced labor and Colorado's prohibition on unjust enrichment. GEO responded that the suit must be dismissed under Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U. S. 18, which held that a federal contractor cannot be held liable for conduct that the Government has lawfully “authorized and directed” the contractor to perform. Id., at 20–21. GEO argued that ICE had authorized and directed it to carry out the challenged labor policies. But the District Court did not read GEO's contract with the Government to instruct GEO to adopt those policies. The District Court thus concluded that the Yearsley doctrine did not relieve GEO of legal responsibility and a trial would be necessary. GEO immediately fled an appeal, which the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an order denying Yearsley protection does not qualify for interlocutory review under Cohen v. Benefcial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541.
Page Proof Pending Publication Held: Because Yearsley provides federal contractors a potential merits defense rather than an immunity from suit, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable. Pp. 443–452. (a) The courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “fnal decisions of the district courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291. A decision generally is “fnal” only when it “resolves the entire case”—when it “ends the litigation” on the merits or otherwise. Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U. S. 35, 37–38. That fnal-judgment rule, by preventing piecemeal appeals, “promotes the effcient administration of justice” and “preserves the proper balance between trial and appellate courts.” Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U. S. 23, 36–37. Under the collateral-order doctrine, however, a “small class” of decisions are treated as “fnal”—and thus immediately appealable—even though they do not end a case. Cohen, 337 U. S., at 546. To get immediate review, a prejudgment order must satisfy the three conditions this Court has “distilled” from Cohen. Will v. Hallock, 546 U. S. 345, 349.
Syllabus The order must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a fnal judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 522. Whether the denial of a pretrial request to dismiss a case like the one here can satisfy Cohen's third condition will generally turn on whether the defendant has asserted a defense to liability or instead an immunity from suit. A party asserting a merits defense advances some reason why his conduct was not unlawful and he should not be found liable. But a party asserting an immunity need not challenge the merits of the charge against him: his claim of immunity does not turn on his conduct's legality. That difference entails another. Because it ensures a defendant need not “answer for his conduct” in court at all, an immunity is in its “essence” an “entitlement not to stand trial.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 525–526. A liability defense, by contrast, does not allow the defendant to escape legal proceedings, because it is through them that the asserted defense is addressed and liability fnally determined. And that divergence matters for Cohen's third condition, which requires that the order involve a right that “would be irretrievably lost absent an immediate appeal.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U. S., at 524. The right not to stand trial is irretrievably lost once trial occurs, but the right to a fnding of non-liability can be effectively vindicated after trial, through reversal of an adverse fnal judgment. So, if a defendant asserts a liability defense, Cohen is likely to block an immediate appeal; if he asserts an immunity, Cohen will likely allow it. Pp. 443–447. (b) Does Yearsley offer federal contractors a merits defense or instead an immunity? Menocal says a defense, because Yearsley gives contractors only a way to show that their conduct complied with the law. GEO says an immunity—more specifcally, “derivative sovereign immunity”—where the Government's own immunity extends to contractors who meet specifed conditions. Brief for GEO 15. Yearsley provides a potential defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. In Yearsley, the Court held that a contractor that had fooded the Yearsleys' property while performing work “authorized and directed by the Government” was not liable to the landowner. 309 U. S., at 20. The Court explained that a contractor acting as an agent of the Government could be held liable for injurious conduct in only two circumstances: when “he exceeded his authority” or when that authority “was not validly conferred.” Id., at 21. The Court found neither circumstance obtained in Yearsley, because the contractor received a lawful authorization and stayed within the bounds of the authority given. That reasoning describes a defense, not an immunity: Yearsley's protection runs out when the contractor may have violated the law—when the
Page Proof Pending Publication
Excerpt of 8 of 91 paragraphs. Full opinion available on the interactive page or in the official PDF.
Read the slip opinion (PDF) · Interactive oral-argument transcript · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.