Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal
607 U. S. 438 (2026) · 2/25/26
Because the Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U. S. 18 (1940), provides federal contractors a potential merits defense rather than an immunity from suit, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable.
Edition: preliminary print (page proof)
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. · Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment.
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…
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 “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291. A decision generally is “final” 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 final-judgment rule, by preventing piecemeal appeals, “promotes the…Read it in the reading room ›