The GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 2:24-cv-02924

The GEO Group, a private contractor operating immigration detention facilities for ICE in California, sued state officials, claiming that a recently amended California statute (Health & Safety Code § 101045) imposes conflicting state standards on its federally-contracted facilities.
Plaintiff argued that § 101045 replaces uniform federal detention standards with complex and inconsistent state standards enforced through county inspections.
Defendants (the Governor, Attorney General, and a county health officer) argued the statute merely authorizes inspections and reporting, not the imposition of substantive state standards on private, federally-operated facilities.
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of § 101045 and challenged the statute under federal intergovernmental immunity and preemption doctrines.
The state defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, contending that plaintiff's reading of the statute was erroneous and no credible threat of enforcement existed.
The court held a hearing, ultimately granting defendants’ motion to dismiss (with leave to amend) and denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 101045 impose state standards and requirements on private federal contractors?	Section imposes state standards, conflicting with federal law and contracts.	Section only authorizes inspections/reports, not standards enforcement.	Statute does not impose substantive standards; only requires inspections and reporting.
Standing: Has plaintiff alleged a credible threat of enforcement to justify pre-enforcement review?	Faces imminent, credible threat due to costs/inspections and possibility of enforcement.	No threat—State disavows enforcement; statute does not proscribe plaintiff's conduct.	No credible threat or proscribed conduct; standing not established.
Preliminary Injunction: Is plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits or face irreparable harm?	Imminent threat of enforcement, irreparable harm from compliance costs/conflicting standards.	Plaintiff cannot show standing or likely success; no credible threat of enforcement.	Denied; plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for standing and no likelihood of success.
Leave to Amend: Should plaintiff be allowed to cure standing deficiencies?	(not argued)	Skeptical but permissible unless futility is shown.	Granted leave to amend, but cautioned substantial hurdles remain.

United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) (upheld California inspection statute against preemption/intergovernmental immunity challenge, so long as statute did not impose mandates or standards)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (sets out standard for pre-enforcement standing)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunction)
Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745 (9th Cir. 2022) (clarifies standards for federal preemption and intergovernmental immunity in context of private detention contracts)
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 821 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2016) (presumption against preemption in field and conflict preemption analysis)