ICE Detention Work Program Lawsuits: Key Cases and TVPA Claims

The ICE detention work program lawsuits are a group of class actions filed since 2014 accusing the private companies that run most immigration detention centers — chiefly GEO Group and CoreCivic — of forcing detained immigrants to clean, cook, and maintain facilities for $1 a day or no pay at all, in violation of federal anti-trafficking law and state minimum wage statutes. The cases have produced a $23.2 million judgment in Washington, a unanimous 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling clearing the way for trial in Colorado, and a settlement in Georgia. As of mid-2026, several of the largest suits are still headed toward trial.

The Work Program at the Center of the Cases

ICE’s Voluntary Work Program is authorized by a 1950 statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1555(d), which permits allowances for work performed by people in immigration custody.{¹} ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards set the minimum pay at $1 per day, a rate unchanged since Congress set it in 1950; adjusted for inflation, it would be about $14 today.{²}{}

Detainees do the work that keeps facilities running: mopping, preparing food, doing laundry, cleaning bathrooms. GEO estimated that detainee labor at its Tacoma, Washington facility replaced 85 full-time employees.{³} Roughly half of people held by ICE for more than a few days participate, and over 90 percent of ICE detainees are housed in privately operated facilities.{¹}

Separately, many facilities enforce “Housing Unit Sanitation Policies” requiring detainees to clean common areas for no pay. Lawsuits allege that people who refuse face punishment including solitary confinement.{⁴} Plaintiffs and critics argue that the “voluntary” label is misleading because facility commissaries charge for supplemental food, hygiene products, and writing materials, pushing detainees into paid work out of financial necessity.{¹}

Menocal v. GEO Group (Colorado)

Filed in October 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Menocal is the earliest of the major suits and targets GEO’s Aurora Immigration Processing Center. The class of roughly 62,000 former detainees alleges that GEO’s mandatory sanitation policy forced people to clean common areas under threat of up to 72 hours in solitary confinement, and that the $1-per-day work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.{⁵}{⁴}

GEO argued it was shielded under the Yearsley doctrine, which protects federal contractors for conduct the government authorized. The district court rejected that defense, finding GEO had “independently developed and implemented” the challenged policies and “far exceeded its contractual obligations.”{⁴} On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Yearsley provides a “merits defense” rather than immunity from suit. Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “If eventually found liable, GEO may of course appeal. But GEO must wait until then.”{⁶}{⁷} The district court lifted its stay on March 12, 2026, and no trial date has been set.{⁸}

Washington State v. GEO Group and Nwauzor v. GEO Group

These paired cases, both filed in September 2017 in the Western District of Washington, produced the largest financial judgment so far. The Washington Attorney General sued GEO under the state’s Minimum Wage Act, and a private class action involving more than 10,000 detainees at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma was consolidated with it.{⁹}

In 2021, a jury unanimously found GEO had violated Washington’s minimum wage law and awarded $17.3 million in back wages. A federal judge separately ordered $5.9 million for unjust enrichment, bringing the total to $23.2 million. The court also enjoined GEO from operating the work program unless it paid the state minimum wage. Because federal appropriations cap reimbursement at $1 per day, ICE permitted GEO to shut down the Tacoma work program rather than comply.{¹⁰}

The Washington Supreme Court, answering a certified question, ruled in 2023 that detained workers at private facilities qualify as “employees” under the state’s Minimum Wage Act.{¹¹} A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the full judgment on January 16, 2025, and the full Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case in August 2025.{¹²} GEO filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2026, arguing the ruling interferes with federal immigration operations.{¹⁰}

Novoa v. GEO Group (California)

Filed in December 2017 in the Central District of California, Novoa challenges work practices at GEO’s Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The court certified three classes in 2019, including a nationwide class covering GEO’s Housing Unit Sanitation Policy across all its facilities.{¹³} In January 2022, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their California minimum wage and unfair competition claims, finding GEO’s control over wages, hours, and working conditions established an employer relationship and that $1-per-day pay violated state law.{} Forced labor and unjust enrichment claims remain unresolved, and the case is stayed pending the Washington litigation.{¹⁴}

Owino v. CoreCivic (California)

Filed in May 2017 in the Southern District of California, Owino may have the broadest class certified in any of these cases. In 2020 the court approved three classes: a California forced labor class, a national forced labor class covering all CoreCivic ICE facilities, and a California labor law class. The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the certification in 2022.{¹⁵}

Discovery has dragged. Identifying class members has been especially difficult because an estimated 82 percent have been deported, including to countries without U.S. diplomatic ties. Settlement talks that had resumed after failing in 2022 collapsed on November 6, 2024, the day after the presidential election.{¹⁶} No trial date has been set.{¹⁷}

Barrientos v. CoreCivic (Georgia)

Filed in April 2018 in the Middle District of Georgia, Barrientos targeted the Stewart Detention Center. Plaintiffs alleged CoreCivic forced detainees to work for as little as $1 per day under threat of solitary confinement, loss of privacy, and criminal prosecution.{¹⁸} In 2020, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act applies to private contractors operating immigration detention facilities, a finding later relied on by other courts.{¹⁹}

Judge Clay D. Land dismissed CoreCivic’s counterclaim seeking reimbursement for housing detainees, writing that the company’s “audacity in claiming that it should be compensated for providing basic necessities to detainees who it contracted to detain is astonishing.”{¹⁸} Class certification was denied in March 2023, leaving three individual plaintiffs. The parties settled in October 2023. CoreCivic agreed to give every detained worker at Stewart a document, in English and Spanish, informing them they cannot be forced to work, may refuse at any time, and are entitled to compensation, training, and safety equipment.{²⁰}

Other Cases

M. Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, filed in 2018 over the Laredo Detention Center in Texas, was voluntarily dismissed in March 2022 after the parties reached undisclosed terms.{²¹} A related case, C. Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, involving the Otay Mesa facility in San Diego, has been stayed since 2018 pending resolution of Owino.{²²}

The Legal Theories Being Tested

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act

Most of these cases bring claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits obtaining labor through force, threats of force, physical restraint, or serious harm.{²³} Plaintiffs allege private operators use threats of solitary confinement and the withholding of basic necessities to coerce work. Courts have generally allowed these claims to proceed. The Eleventh Circuit held in Barrientos that the TVPA covers private contractors operating federal detention facilities, and the Menocal district court ruled the statute’s “plain text reaches any type of forced labor.”{²⁴}

Defendants counter that required cleaning duties amount to “personal housekeeping” rather than compensable labor. ICE’s own standards define personal housekeeping narrowly, covering things like making beds and keeping floors free of debris. The cleaning at issue in these lawsuits typically goes further, reaching walls, toilets, windows, and shared common areas.{²³}

State Minimum Wage Claims

The Washington litigation established that detained workers at private facilities can be considered “employees” under state minimum wage law, a conclusion the Washington Supreme Court reached in 2023 and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2025.{¹¹} The Novoa court reached a similar conclusion on summary judgment under California law.{¹⁴}

A 2024 California Supreme Court decision in Ruelas v. County of Alameda complicated state-law claims. The court ruled that California’s minimum wage law does not apply to pretrial detainees working in county jails, finding that a separate Penal Code provision, allowing a discretionary wage credit of up to $2 for eight hours of work, governs instead. The ruling addressed county jails rather than ICE detention, but it narrowed the precedent available to plaintiffs relying on California labor law.{²⁵}

Government Contractor Immunity

GEO Group and CoreCivic argue that because they operate detention centers under federal contract, they share the government’s sovereign immunity. This defense, rooted in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., contends a private contractor cannot be held liable for conduct the government authorized and directed. Courts have largely rejected the argument, finding the companies developed their specific work policies independently. The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in GEO Group v. Menocal did not resolve whether the defense will ultimately succeed, only that GEO cannot use it to avoid trial altogether.{⁷}

The Thirteenth Amendment

Because immigration detention is civil rather than criminal, the Thirteenth Amendment’s exception permitting involuntary servitude “as a punishment for crime” does not apply to detained immigrants, who have not been convicted of anything.{} Earlier courts were unsympathetic; the Fifth Circuit rejected similar claims in 1990 and 1997. Recent litigation has reframed the constitutional argument through the TVPA, which scholars describe as injecting “new potency in the Thirteenth Amendment’s guarantee of freedom.”{²⁶}

What Is at Stake Financially

GEO Group is ICE’s largest contractor, reporting $636 million in revenue for the second quarter of 2025 alone.{} Since January 2025, the company has reactivated four facilities totaling 6,600 beds for ICE, expected to add more than $240 million in annual revenue.{²⁷}

The Washington judgment of $23.2 million, though the largest yet, represented less than one percent of GEO’s 2024 revenue.{³} The bigger threat is precedent. If courts broadly require operators to pay state minimum wages, which reached $16.66 per hour in Washington in 2025, the companies face a choice between much higher labor costs and shutting down work programs entirely, as GEO did in Tacoma after the jury verdict.{¹¹} GEO manages 16 ICE detention facilities nationwide, and its contracts require it to follow all applicable federal, state, and local labor laws while paying detainees at least $1 per day.{}

Where the Cases Stand in Mid-2026

None of the largest lawsuits has yet gone to trial on the forced labor claims. Menocal is closest, back before the Colorado district court with the stay lifted after the Supreme Court’s ruling; no trial date has been set.{⁸} Owino, with its nationwide class, remains in discovery.{¹⁶} Novoa remains stayed.{¹⁴} The Washington judgment has been affirmed at every level except the U.S. Supreme Court, where GEO’s certiorari petition is pending.{¹⁰}

1
California Law Review. Working While Detained
2
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 – Section 5.8
3
Louisiana Illuminator. ICE Detain
4
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal
5
Cornell Law Institute. GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal
6
Politico. Supreme Court Ruling on ICE Detention Contractor
7
U.S. Supreme Court. GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, No. 24-758
8
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Menocal v. GEO Group
9
Washington State Attorney General. Ninth Circuit Affirms For-Profit Operator of Northwest ICE Processing Center Violated Minimum Wage Law
10
U.S. Supreme Court. GEO Group Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 25-828
11
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, Nos. 21-36024, 21-36025
12
Washington State Standard. Tacoma Detention Center Must Pay for Violating Minimum Wage Law, Appeals Court Affirms
13
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Novoa v. GEO Group, Class Certification Order
14
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Novoa v. GEO Group
15
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Owino v. CoreCivic
16
Prison Legal News. Federal Government, CoreCivic Slow-Walk Class Action Challenges to Forced Labor of ICE Detainees
17
CoreCivic Labor Class Action. Owino v. CoreCivic FAQs
18
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Barrientos v. CoreCivic
19
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Barrientos v. CoreCivic, No. 18-15081
20
Southern Poverty Law Center. Settlement in Forced Labor Case Against Private Prison Company Operating Immigration Detention Center
21
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Gonzalez v. CoreCivic
22
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Carlos Gonzalez v. CoreCivic
23
University of Chicago Law Review. Defining Forced Labor
24
Human Trafficking Legal Center. Human Trafficking and Forced Labor in For-Profit Detention Facilities
25
FindLaw. Ruelas v. County of Alameda
26
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. Forced Labor in Immigration Detention
27
Brennan Center for Justice. Private Prison Companies’ Enormous Windfall