SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday appeared unconvinced that a California law usurps federal authority over health and safety inspections of federal immigration facilities.
Geo Group, a contractor that provides services at immigration facilities, sued Governor Gavin Newsom and others in 2024 over Senate Bill 1132. The company claims the new law impedes and burdens the operation of federal facilities, making it unconstitutional.
That law empowers county health officers to investigate health and sanitary conditions at a handful of facilities, including jails and private detention centers.
Such state-mandated inspections would impede and burden federal operations, usurping federal supremacy over immigration detention centers and displacing standards mandated by Congress, Geo Group claims.
Mostly focused on Kern County facilities in its suit, Geo Group seeks an injunction to stop the law’s enforcement. The state wants the suit dismissed.
U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd made no decision Monday. But he appeared skeptical from the start and noted that state law authorizes local officials to inspect a handful of facilities, adding that Geo Group isn’t challenging other statutes concerning enforcement.
“I’m not even really sure what the point is,” Drozd said, adding moments later: “There are enforcement provisions. You’re just not challenging them.”
Additionally, Geo Group’s contract with the federal government obligates it to comply with California health and safety laws, the judge said.
Attorney Scott Schipma, representing Geo Group, said state laws violate federal law when they burden or impede federal operations including for third-party operators, like Geo Group. The federal government already has its own health regulations and California law is attempting to impose its own, Schipma said.
Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, representing the state, said no credible threat of enforcement exists. Representing the Kern County health officer, attorney Jeremy McNutt said his client had no intention of inspecting the federal facility. However, he agreed with Schipma that, if ordered by certain officials, the health officer would have a duty to inspect.
Peppering Schipma with questions, Drozd asked if federal authority would be affected if he ruled that the state law authorized inspections only and not the imposition of state standards. Schipma argued it would, as an unannounced inspection would place a burden on the federal facility.
Drozd also pointed to Geo Group’s contract with the federal government, which states that it’s obligated to comply with state health and safety laws.
“I don’t understand even, really,” the judge said.
Schipma argued that the contract calls for complying with applicable, which means constitutional, laws. It doesn’t allow California to preempt the federal government’s supremacy.
Strong said the burden Schipma opposes is merely an operational cost and that the state isn’t directing the facility. Schipma said the inspections would require a facility to change its schedule and move people to different areas.
“Here, we have a very different thing,” Schipma added. “It’s much more direct.”
Geo Group in its suit claims Senate Bill 1132 was one of a handful of attempts by California to place burdens on the federal government’s national security function. It pointed to a 2019 law that tried to outlaw private detention facilities in the state, which was later struck down by the Ninth Circuit as to facilities contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Additionally, other bills tried to shield immigrants from an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement action by the federal government, Geo Group claims. The Ninth Circuit struck also down portions of that law, allowing the state to only “review” immigration detention centers for confinement and standard-of-care conditions.
Drozd said he’ll issue written orders on the motions for preliminary injunction and dismissal.
“I can’t get you a time estimate right now,” he added. “I’ll get to it as quickly as I can.”