Skip to main content

California’s private prison ban is in jeopardy again.

The owner of Adelanto’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement-contracted detention facilities won a second day in court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the suit against the ban to be reconsidered.

The law, passed in October, 2019, prevents private detention-facility contracts from being signed, and prevents people from running any private detention facilities in the state, including facilities contracted by the federal government.

The GEO Group, which runs the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and Desert View Annex in Adelanto, sued California after the law was passed. The United States Federal Government, under President Donald Trump, joined the suit. Their case was largely thrown out by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Oct. 8, but they will get a new trial under the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

U.S. Rep. Norma Torres (D-Pomona) wrote a letter June 2021, asking the Department of Justice to withdraw from the case.

“(T)hose detained in privately run detention centers in California are exposed to a host of inhumane conditions, from serious, sometimes deadly, lack of adequate medical care to sexual abuse to everyday indignities,” Torres wrote.

U.S. Rep. Peter Aguilar (D-San Bernardino), and 22 other representatives also signed the letter.

The two Adelanto facilities have held 329 individuals since January, 2021, at a combined average of 216 days per individual, according to ICE data. Their combined capacity is 2,640.

The GEO Group runs five other detention facilities in California, and 113 across the United States.

The split decision by the court ruled that the law discriminated against the federal government and impeded federal immigrations enforcement.

The court found discrimination against the federal government because only non-federally operated detention facilities were exempted from the law, and because California-contracted private prisons had until 2028 to wind down while the federally-contracted facilities had no leeway.

“California cannot intrude into the realm of the federal government’s exclusive powers to detain undocumented and other removable immigrants if the state law conflicts with federal law and violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” the majority opinion, written by Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee reads.

Appellate Judge Mary Murguia dissented, saying that the 10-year runway given to state contracts and not federal contracts was due to a prior court order which forces California to depopulate prisons, not due to discrimination against the federal government.

Murguia said the law does not impede the federal government since the contract with the GEO Group was not against the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress,” and “there is no specific federal statute or regulation that AB 32 directly contradicts.”

The law was passed to improve the health and safety of inmates. Then-Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who now serves as California Attorney General, wrote the bill.

“Prisons and detention centers shouldn’t be places of profit,” Bonta wrote.

“We will continue the fight to ensure the dignities and rights of everyone in California are protected.”

Topics to follow


            

            

                        
assignment_turned_in Registrations

    
     
   

Subscribe now for free

Follow Our Courts will never charge for access to our content, and we will not sell your information.

Password must be at least 7 characters long.
Password must be at least 7 characters long.
Please login to view this page.
Please login to view this page.
Please login to view this page.