Image Credits: @timmossholder on Unsplash (Unsplash License)
The privatization of immigration detention centers and a substantial increase in detainee numbers have become a significant topic of recent legal discourse. As of July 2023, there has been a notable uptick in the number of immigrants detained per day, averaging around 30,000 individuals. This marks a significant jump from the 2021 average of just over 15,000 detainees. A striking aspect of these numbers is that 90.8% of these immigrants are held in private detention centers, which raises questions about the role of privatization in the immigration system, its potential impact on the detainees’ well-being and rights, and the complications of detained immigrants being a source of profit.
One of the cases that has garnered attention within this context is Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc. brought to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in April of 2018 and concluded in October of 2023. This class-action lawsuit was filed by three immigrant detainees of Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. Stewart Detention Center is one of over sixty-five prisons operated and owned by CoreCivic, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that CoreCivic forced detainees into a labor scheme, compelling them to work for minimal or no pay by threatening to deprive them of basic necessities if they refused to work.
Wilhen Hill Barrientos, one of the three plaintiffs, has provided a detailed description of the forced labor he performed during his time at Stewart Detention Center to his attorneys from Southern Poverty Law Center. Barrientos was sent to Stewart after seeking asylum from Guatemala, where he was forced to work in the center’s kitchen making fifty cents an hour, or $5 after an eight-hour work day. Cooking up to 2,000 meals a day, Barrientos received no days off, being denied time off even when he was sick. Not only was Barrientos making close to no money for his labor, but the consequences of refusing the work included being unable to afford to call his family, threats to be moved into worse living conditions, and solitary confinement.
Barrientos v. CoreCivic was brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and sought declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages for violations of the TVPA and unjust enrichment under state law. TVPA was enacted for the purpose of preventing human trafficking, protecting the rights of trafficking victims, and charging those found guilty of trafficking. CoreCivic attempted to dismiss the case, arguing that the TVPA did not apply to private contractors operating immigration detention facilities. After a legal battle, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the TVPA did indeed cover such contractors. The lawsuit continued, leading to extensive discovery and motions. The plaintiffs later sought class certification for the Forced Labor and Unjust Enrichment Classes but faced challenges in proving commonality among class members. In July 2023, the plaintiffs moved once more for class certification, with a jury trial scheduled for October 16, 2023. However, shortly before the trial, the parties informed the court of a settlement in principle. They indicated their intention to finalize the agreement and dismiss the case, marking a potential resolution to the prolonged legal dispute.
On October 19, 2023, Barrientos v. CoreCivic ended in a settlement. Interestingly, the settlement contained no monetary compensation for any of the plaintiffs. Instead, CoreCivic consented to develop a clear statement of worker’s rights and distribute this statement to every detainee at Stewart Detention Center. The list of rights will affirm their freedom from compulsory labor and guarantee their entitlement to swift financial reparation, appropriate training, essential safety gear, and respectful treatment from employees. These documents will be available to detainees in both Spanish and English.
Stewart Detention Center is not the only immigration detention facility with a poor track record of labor practices. The GEO Group, another large private prison operating company, was sued in 2017 under similar circumstances. In the case of Menocal v. GEO, a GEO detention center was allegedly holding detainees in solitary confinement unless they complied with working conditions that included receiving little or no pay. Part of the lawsuit alleged that GEO was being unjustly enriched through such payment practices, as the grossly below minimum wage payment allowed the company to save tens of millions of dollars annually. Private prison corporations are able to save upwards of $40 million annually by forcing unpaid labor on detainees. The similarities of Menocal v. GEO and Barrientos v. Corecivic expose the broader issue of privatized detention centers and concerns over the potential for profit.
Some may find the lack of any monetary reward for the plaintiffs in Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc. to be concerning, especially in the context of a forced labor case. Given the serious nature of such allegations—including underpaid labor of detainees and the unjust enrichment of CoreCivic, Inc.—absence of a financial reward may be seen as a failure to adequately rectify the harm suffered by detainees. Furthermore, creating a document of listed rights does not entail a significant form of enforcement of these rights. Without stringent monitoring, unfair labor practices have the potential to continue with the document reduced to a formality.
The legal significance of the Barrientos v. CoreCivic case lies in its direct challenge to the practices of private immigration detention centers, specifically addressing the issue of forced labor and the rights of detained immigrants. The outcome of this case is pivotal in providing an interpretation of the TVPA that applies to privately owned immigration detention centers. CoreCivic’s argument that the TVPA did not apply to them was of significant legal contention, and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to uphold the applicability of the TVPA to such contractors sets a precedent in holding private entities accountable under federal anti-trafficking laws. Furthermore, the class-action nature of this lawsuit underlines the systemic nature of the alleged abuses, suggesting that such practices may not be isolated incidents but rather part of a broader pattern within private detention facilities.