In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decisive blow to the GEO Group, a private operator of immigration detention centers. The court upheld a $23 million judgment requiring GEO to pay back wages to immigrant detainees and restitution to the State of Washington, rejecting the company's claims of immunity under federal contracts. While the ruling originated in Washington, its implications for California are significant, touching state wage enforcement and federal preemption doctrine.

Who Handled the Case

For the detainee class: The class was represented by a coalition led by Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, including attorneys Adam J. Berger, Lindsay L. Halm, Jamal N. Whitehead, and Rebecca J. Roe. Additional counsel included R. Andrew Free (Law Office of R. Andrew Free), Meena Pallipamu (Meena Pallipamu Immigration Law PLLC), and Devin T. Theriot-Orr (Open Sky Law PLLC). On appeal, the team also included Gupta Wessler PLLC, with Jennifer D. Bennett, Neil K. Sawhney, and Gregory A. Beck.

For the State of Washington: The case was originally filed by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson in 2017. In 2025, the Attorney General's Office under Attorney General Nick Brown continued the litigation on appeal. Assistant Attorneys General involved in earlier Ninth Circuit proceedings included Marsha J. Chien, Andrea Brenneke, and Lane Polozola.

Court and panel: The trial was before Judge Robert J. Bryan in the Western District of Washington. The Ninth Circuit panel comprised Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, Judge William A. Fletcher, and Judge Mark J. Bennett.

1. The Ruling in the Washington Case: What Happened?

The case, Nwauzor v. GEO Group, Inc., began in 2017 with separate suits by a class of detained workers and the State of Washington. A jury awarded detainees $17.3 million in back pay and the state $5.9 million for unjust enrichment, totaling more than $23 million in damages. GEO then suspended its Voluntary Work Program rather than pay minimum wage.

The core question was whether detainees performing tasks like cooking, cleaning, repairs, laundry, and library support are "employees" under Washington's Minimum Wage Act even though GEO operated under an ICE contract providing $1 per day.

In January 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel upheld the verdict, rejecting GEO's arguments that federal immigration policy preempted state law or that GEO enjoyed intergovernmental immunity. In August 2025, the court declined GEO's requests for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving the judgment intact.

2. Legal Analysis: Key Doctrinal Lessons

a. State Minimum Wage Law and Federal Contractors

The court held that Washington's minimum wage law could be enforced against GEO even though it was a federal contractor. The law applied neutrally and did not single out federal operations.

b. Employee Status and “Voluntary” Work

Washington's Supreme Court determined that detainees in the work program qualify as employees under state law, and that exemptions for government institutions do not protect a private operator like GEO.

c. Intergovernmental Immunity and the Supremacy Clause

GEO argued that applying state wage law interfered with federal policy. The panel found no conflict. ICE did not require the work program or dictate wages, so state law could coexist with federal authority.

3. California's Take: Why This Matters to Employment Lawyers

a. Enforceability of California's Minimum Wage

California's statewide minimum wage is at least $16 per hour, and many localities set higher rates. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning supports applying California wage laws to similar programs run by federal contractors in the state.

b. Private Detention Facilities in California

Private contractors, including GEO, operate federal facilities in California, such as Adelanto. Operations like these may face similar wage exposure under California law.

c. Leverage for Worker and Detainee Advocacy

Plaintiffs' counsel and advocacy groups can cite the decision when negotiating compliance or litigating back pay and restitution for program participants.

d. Signal for Other Ninth Circuit States

The decision reinforces that state wage standards can bind federal contractors throughout the Ninth Circuit, including California.

4. Broader Impacts and Strategic Considerations

a. Litigation Strategy

The ruling provides momentum for state wage claims against federal contractors and supports retroactive back pay theories where underpayment occurred.

b. Contract and Policy Pressure

ICE may need to account for higher state wages in contracts with private operators. California policymakers may also consider clarifying statutes to protect detained workers.

c. Employer and Contractor Risk

Underpaying workers, including detainees, can trigger large judgments and restitution awards. Compliance planning should consider state wage standards even when federal contracts are involved.

5. What Comes Next: Supreme Court Watch and California

GEO has signaled an intent to seek Supreme Court review in related litigation that raises immunity and preemption theories. A broad contractor-immunity ruling could narrow states' ability to enforce wage laws, which would affect California enforcement strategies.

Conclusion: Opportunity, Not Just Outcome

The Ninth Circuit decision in Nwauzor v. GEO Group is more than a Washington case. It offers a blueprint for applying state labor protections in settings staffed through detainee work programs. For California, with its high minimum wage and active private facility footprint, this creates new paths for enforcement and advocacy, as well as compliance imperatives for contractors.