Supreme Court to hear private prison company appeal in lawsuit over immigration detainee $1-a-day wages
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from a private prison company facing a lawsuit claiming immigration detainees were forced to work and paid a $1 a day in Colorado.
The GEO Group appealed to the high court after a judge refused to toss out the 2014 lawsuit saying the detainees had to perform both unpaid janitorial work and other jobs for little pay to supplement meager meals.
The company says the lawsuits are really a back door way to push back against federal immigration policy, and its pay rates are in line with Immigration and Customs Enforcement regulations.
They say the migrants can’t sue because it’s running Aurora, Colorado, facility on behalf of the government, which is immune from such lawsuits.
Attorneys for the migrants say the lawsuit is only about people being paid “almost nothing” for their work, and the contract didn’t require them to pay so little.
A lower court judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward and the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found it couldn’t review the immunity claim before trial. The GEO Group argued to the Supreme Court that government contractors should be able to argue that issue on appeal quickly.
The Florida-based GEO Group is one of the top private detention providers in the country, with management or ownership of about 77,000 beds at 98 facilities. Its contracts include a new federal immigration detention center where Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested at a protest in May.
Similar lawsuits have been brought on behalf of immigration detainees elsewhere, including a Washington state case where the company was ordered to pay more than $23 million.
The GEO Group appealed to the high court after a judge refused to toss out the 2014 lawsuit saying the detainees had to perform both unpaid janitorial work and other jobs for little pay to supplement meager meals.
The company says the lawsuits are really a back door way to push back against federal immigration policy, and its pay rates are in line with Immigration and Customs Enforcement regulations.
They say the migrants can’t sue because it’s running Aurora, Colorado, facility on behalf of the government, which is immune from such lawsuits.
Attorneys for the migrants say the lawsuit is only about people being paid “almost nothing” for their work, and the contract didn’t require them to pay so little.
A lower court judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward and the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found it couldn’t review the immunity claim before trial. The GEO Group argued to the Supreme Court that government contractors should be able to argue that issue on appeal quickly.
The Florida-based GEO Group is one of the top private detention providers in the country, with management or ownership of about 77,000 beds at 98 facilities. Its contracts include a new federal immigration detention center where Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested at a protest in May.
Similar lawsuits have been brought on behalf of immigration detainees elsewhere, including a Washington state case where the company was ordered to pay more than $23 million.
Trump asks Supreme Court to clear way for federal downsizing plans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday renewed its request for the Supreme Court to clear the way for plans to downsize the federal workforce, while a lawsuit filed by labor unions and cities proceeds.
The high court filing came after an appeals court refused to freeze a California-based judge’s order halting the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.
In her ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce.
The administration initially asked the justices to step in last month, but withdrew its appeal for technical, legal reasons. The latest filing is one in a series of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority.
Illston’s order “rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the new appeal.
Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk left his role last week.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.
Illston’s order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.
Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
The Supreme Court set a deadline of next Monday for a response from the unions and cities, including Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco.
Some of the labor unions and nonprofit groups are also plaintiffs in another lawsuit before a San Francisco judge challenging the mass firings of probationary workers. In that case, Judge William Alsup ordered the government in March to reinstate those workers, but the U.S. Supreme Court later blocked his order.
The high court filing came after an appeals court refused to freeze a California-based judge’s order halting the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.
In her ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce.
The administration initially asked the justices to step in last month, but withdrew its appeal for technical, legal reasons. The latest filing is one in a series of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority.
Illston’s order “rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the new appeal.
Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk left his role last week.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.
Illston’s order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.
Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
The Supreme Court set a deadline of next Monday for a response from the unions and cities, including Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco.
Some of the labor unions and nonprofit groups are also plaintiffs in another lawsuit before a San Francisco judge challenging the mass firings of probationary workers. In that case, Judge William Alsup ordered the government in March to reinstate those workers, but the U.S. Supreme Court later blocked his order.
Supreme Court will consider reviving Republican challenge to Illinois law on mail ballots
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider reviving a Republican challenge to an Illinois law that allows mail ballots to be counted if they are received up to two weeks after Election Day.
The justices will hear arguments in the fall over whether Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two former presidential electors have the legal right, or standing, to sue over the law in federal court.
Lower federal courts ruled they lack standing.
But the case could serve to amplify claims made by President Donald Trump that late-arriving ballots and drawn out electoral counts undermine confidence in elections.
Illinois is among 18 states and the District of Columbia that accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In March, Trump signed a sweeping executive order on elections that aims to require votes to be “cast and received” by Election Day and says federal funding should be conditional on state compliance.
In their appeal to the court, the Illinois Republicans said the justices should make clear that candidates have the right to challenge state regulations of federal elections.
The justices will hear arguments in the fall over whether Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two former presidential electors have the legal right, or standing, to sue over the law in federal court.
Lower federal courts ruled they lack standing.
But the case could serve to amplify claims made by President Donald Trump that late-arriving ballots and drawn out electoral counts undermine confidence in elections.
Illinois is among 18 states and the District of Columbia that accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In March, Trump signed a sweeping executive order on elections that aims to require votes to be “cast and received” by Election Day and says federal funding should be conditional on state compliance.
In their appeal to the court, the Illinois Republicans said the justices should make clear that candidates have the right to challenge state regulations of federal elections.
