493 F.Supp.3d 905
S.D. Cal.2020Background
- California enacted A.B. 32 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) banning operation or renewal of private, for-profit detention facilities in California, with limited exceptions (certain types of facilities, leases operated by CDCR, and pre‑existing contracts not including extensions).
- GEO Group operates multiple private detention facilities in California under contracts with USMS and ICE; the United States (BOP, USMS, ICE) uses private facilities in California for inmates, RRCs, and detainees.
- GEO and the United States sued California officials challenging A.B. 32 as preempted and violative of federal intergovernmental immunity; the cases were consolidated.
- Defendants moved to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings; plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctions enjoining enforcement of A.B. 32 against their facilities.
- The court dismissed several claims without prejudice (notably BOP‑related claims for lack of justiciability and certain preemption/intergovernmental immunity theories) but held that A.B. 32 is obstacle‑preempted as applied to USMS’s use of private detention facilities and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of A.B. 32 against USMS’s privately contracted facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / justiciability for United States re BOP facilities | U.S. alleges concrete harms from A.B. 32 to BOP operations and RRCs | Defendants say no imminent injury: Taft closed, no plan to contract; representations that RRCs fall within statutory exception | Court: Dismissed U.S. BOP claims for lack of Article III standing/ripeness (no imminent, concrete injury) |
| Conflict preemption (obstacle) as to USMS contracts | A.B. 32 frustrates Congress’s authorization for USMS to use private detention when local capacity is insufficient (18 U.S.C. § 4013) | California says presumption against preemption applies; A.B. 32 is a health/safety law of traditional state concern | Court: A.B. 32 is obstacle‑preempted as applied to USMS’s privately contracted detention facilities; plaintiffs likely to succeed on that claim |
| Conflict/field preemption as to ICE and BOP contracting | Plaintiffs argue federal statutes and regulatory framework reserved contracting/placement decisions to federal agencies | Defendants emphasize traditional state police powers over health/safety of detainees and absence of clear and manifest congressional intent to occupy the field | Court: Rejected obstacle and field preemption claims as to ICE and BOP facilities (no clear and manifest intent; presumption against preemption applies) |
| Intergovernmental immunity — direct regulation and discrimination | Plaintiffs contend A.B. 32 directly regulates/discriminates against federal operations and contractors (and that contractors are federal instrumentalities) | Defendants say statute targets private operators (legal incidence on contractors), contractors are not federal instrumentalities, and exceptions do not impermissibly favor the State | Court: A.B. 32 does not directly regulate the U.S.; contractors are not federal instrumentalities; challenged exceptions do not constitute unlawful discrimination on this record; intergovernmental immunity claims dismissed in many respects |
| Contract‑extension / safe‑harbor for pre‑existing contracts | GEO seeks declaration A.B. 32 safe‑harbors contracts in effect before 1/1/2020 through full periods including options | Defendants and amici argue procurement/Contract Disputes Act issues and note §9505(a) excludes extensions | Court: Unlikely GEO will prevail because §9505(a) expressly excludes contract extensions; GEO’s safe‑harbor claim denied as unlikely to succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, and public interest)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (preemption analysis and presumption against preemption where States exercise traditional police powers)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (court‑ordered population cap on California prisons relevant to statutory exceptions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires actual or imminent injury)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (Congressional intent is the touchstone in preemption analysis)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) (intergovernmental immunity: state regulation invalid only if it directly regulates or discriminates against the federal government)
- Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 (1973) (private contractors performing government functions are not necessarily federal instrumentalities)
- United States v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39 (1964) (legal incidence test: regulation whose incidence falls on contractor generally not direct regulation of federal government)