Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
The GEO Group, Inc. v. Alejandro Menocal, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 17-1125 · judgment February 9, 2018
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), a business petitioner, and a Tenth Circuit decision below, and down for a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Question presented
The Department of Homeland Security, through its agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is authorized to detain aliens the United States has placed into removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1226. To accomplish this mission, ICE uses a blended set of facilities: some are owned by the agency, and others are owned and operated by contractors. The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) is a contractor that provides this service to ICE. All facilities, whether government-owned or contractorrun are required to meet ICE’s detention standards. The decision below affirms certification of two classes of ICE detainees, who are seeking monetary damages against GEO for administering ICE’s policies. The first class claims that ICE’s policy requiring detainees to occasionally clean their living areas, under the potential sanction of disciplinary segregation for refusing to do so, entitles them to damages and restitution under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a). The second class claims that GEO was “unjustly enriched” by implementing ICE’s Voluntary Work Program (VWP). This class claims that, because detainees are compensated at the rate of $1 per day, they are entitled to restitution for unpaid wages. 1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common questions predominate over individual questions can be satisfied by a class-wide inference of causation based on circumstantial evidence that GEO caused detainees to labor solely “by means of” the threat of disciplinary sanctions, in violation of the TVPA, even though consent is a defense to TVPA liability and there are numerous other plausible reasons why (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Mark Emery
Norton Rose Fulbright, US, LLP
For respondent
Patrick David Lopez
Outten & Golden LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 01 2018Petition DENIED.
- Jul 11 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
- Jul 03 2018Waiver of right of respondent Alejandro Menocal, et al. to respond filed.
- Jun 04 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 9, 2018)