Sep 29, 2026 · 21 min · 6 segments
**Opinion:** https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us2r15\_bqmc.pdf ## Case background GEO Group operates a private…
In Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company, decided in nineteen forty, this Court held that a federal contractor cannot be held liable for conduct that the government has lawfully authorized and directed the contractor to perform.
Rather, liability may attach only if the authorization was unlawful or if the contractor acted outside its scope.
The question here is whether a contractor may take an immediate appeal of a district court’s pretrial order denying Yearsley protection.
The answer is no.
Because Yearsley provides a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit, an order denying its protection can be effectively reviewed after a final judgment.
So appellate review of such an order, as of most pretrial rulings, must await completion of the district court’s proceedings.
The facility holds individuals whose immigration proceedings are pending.
Respondent Alejandro Menocal was detained there in twenty fourteen.
Soon afterward, he initiated this class action on behalf of the Aurora facility’s detainees.
The suit challenges two policies GEO used to put the detainees to work, thereby reducing its own labor costs.
First, the so-called sanitation policy required detainees to clean, without any pay, all the facility’s common areas.
A detainee’s failure to perform his assigned tasks led to escalating sanctions, up to seventy-two hours in solitary confinement.
Second, the so-called voluntary work program offered one dollar per day to detainees for other kinds of needed work, such as preparing food and doing laundry.
Menocal’s complaint alleged that the former policy violated a federal bar on forced labor and that the latter breached Colorado’s prohibition on unjust enrichment.
Following discovery, the district court addressed GEO’s contention that Yearsley required the suit’s dismissal.
That was so, the argument ran, because ICE had by contract authorized and directed GEO to carry out the two challenged policies.
Nothing in its terms, the court found, instructed GEO to adopt the work rules at issue.
Rather, in independently developing and implementing those rules, GIO far exceeded its contractual obligations.
So the Yearsley doctrine, the district court concluded, did not relieve GIO of legal responsibility.
Instead, a trial would be necessary to address whether GIO's policies violated the referenced bans on forced labor or unjust enrichment.
GIO immediately filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction, the court explained, seldom extends to an order that does not terminate the litigation at issue.
Such an order qualifies for interlocutory review only if it satisfies three conditions deriving from this court's decision in Cohen v.
In Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company, decided in nineteen forty, this Court held that a federal contractor cannot be held liable for conduct that the government has lawfully authorized and directed the contractor to perform.
Rather, liability may attach only if the authorization was unlawful or if the contractor acted outside its scope.
The question here is whether a contractor may take an immediate appeal of a district court’s pretrial order denying Yearsley protection.
The answer is no.
Because Yearsley provides a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit, an order denying its protection can be effectively reviewed after a final judgment.
So appellate review of such an order, as of most pretrial rulings, must await completion of the district court’s proceedings.
The facility holds individuals whose immigration proceedings are pending.
Respondent Alejandro Menocal was detained there in twenty fourteen.
Soon afterward, he initiated this class action on behalf of the Aurora facility’s detainees.
The suit challenges two policies GEO used to put the detainees to work, thereby reducing its own labor costs.
First, the so-called sanitation policy required detainees to clean, without any pay, all the facility’s common areas.
A detainee’s failure to perform his assigned tasks led to escalating sanctions, up to seventy-two hours in solitary confinement.
Second, the so-called voluntary work program offered one dollar per day to detainees for other kinds of needed work, such as preparing food and doing laundry.
Menocal’s complaint alleged that the former policy violated a federal bar on forced labor and that the latter breached Colorado’s prohibition on unjust enrichment.
Following discovery, the district court addressed GEO’s contention that Yearsley required the suit’s dismissal.
That was so, the argument ran, because ICE had by contract authorized and directed GEO to carry out the two challenged policies.
Nothing in its terms, the court found, instructed GEO to adopt the work rules at issue.
Rather, in independently developing and implementing those rules, GIO far exceeded its contractual obligations.
So the Yearsley doctrine, the district court concluded, did not relieve GIO of legal responsibility.
Instead, a trial would be necessary to address whether GIO's policies violated the referenced bans on forced labor or unjust enrichment.
GIO immediately filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction, the court explained, seldom extends to an order that does not terminate the litigation at issue.
Such an order qualifies for interlocutory review only if it satisfies three conditions deriving from this court's decision in Cohen v.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.