IDA’s oral statement to the court on AB 32

May it please the court, my name is Jackie Gonzalez, and I am here representing Immigrant Defense Advocates and Immigrant Legal Defense.

This is my first time in federal court and I am here as part of a larger coalition of advocates who worked to support the passage of AB 32, and who are invested in its fair and just implementation. As such, we fully support the constitutional arguments set forth by the CA Attorney General.

We are here to urge the court to do two things: one, to deny GEO’s motion for a preliminary injunction and two, to deny its extraordinary request for declaratory relief. 

In support of our position, we proffer two specific issues that counsel against a preliminary injunction and in favor of dismissal of the case before the court. The first is that GEO comes to this court with unclean hands. The second is that GEO has utterly failed to meet its burden with respect to the contracts it is asking this court to validate.

Equity requires that those seeking its protection shall have acted fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue. Our brief illustrates numerous examples of inequitable and bad faith conduct by GEO in relation to securing contracts in the state of California. 

Publicly available evidence raises serious questions not only with respect to GEO’s past conduct in securing government contracts, but to the validity of the contracts that it is asking this Court to both protect and endorse. Moreover, serious contracting deficiencies, irregularities and the apparent corruption of the contracting process demonstrate that an injunction at this point is not in the public interest.

Because GEO can neither satisfy the irreparable harm standard nor demonstrate that an injunction of AB32 is in the public interest, this Court should deny its motion.

Focusing on the public interest prong of the preliminary injunction standard, GEO cannot demonstrate that an injunction is in the public interest because the contracts that it seeks to protect appear to have been entered into in violation of the spirit of federal procurement laws.

In our brief we detail how GEO has engaged in this form of inequitable conduct from the outset of its involvement with the cities of Adelanto and McFarland, both in securing initial Intergovernmental Services Agreements with those cities, and then subsequently coercing those cash strapped cities to terminate those contracts using questionable financial incentives. These efforts were undertaken in order for GEO to expand their facilities and increase their profits. As further documented in our brief, when asked under oath about these activities, GEO’s CEO appears to have lied about this conduct.

Our brief also notes the serious irregularities that took place during the procurement process for the current contracts awarded to GEO for the Mesa Verde and Adelanto detention facilities. These irregularities were the subject of a letter signed by 21 members of Congress led by the Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The letter noted that the timing of the solicitation appeared to favor incumbent contractors such as GEO in advance of AB32 taking effect, and requested information about the solicitation and procurement process. It is my understanding that to date this congressional inquiry has gone unanswered.

This is extremely concerning – and should concern the Court – because GEO is coming to this court seeking declaratory relief on these contracts as a matter of law. To be explicit, GEO is asking this Court to endorse contracts that run for 15 years and are valued in the billions of dollars – and, by extension, to immunize itself from suit based on those contracts. If the Court provides GEO the relief it seeks, and declares that the contracts are valid, it will do so prematurely and likely bar legitimate future challenges or oversight of these contracts in other forums. We respectfully urge the Court to deny GEO’s extraordinary request.

It is directly against the public interest to allow private corporations to enter into sham contracts with local governments in order to circumvent federal and state laws all while evading oversight and transparency.

By circumventing the contracting laws that they are supposed to follow, GEO and the federal government have undermined the federal contracting process. Because GEO and the federal government have thus far refused to release any information about the formation of these contracts the public cannot be sure that there are not improper motives, illicit financial incentives or other malfeasance that contravene the public interest – and there is ample evidence to suggest that all of these things have occurred.

That is why we are here today and why we filed our brief. To show the court that GEO appears before you with unclean hands, and to point out just how many instances of inequitable conduct have been documented – even without the opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery on this matter.

It is GEO’s burden to demonstrate that the injunction it seeks is in the public interest. It cannot do so based on this record at this time. 

We  recognize it is extremely rare for amici to be able to present argument at a district court on a preliminary injunction and we thank the court for this opportunity.

I would like to leave you with one last thought: AB 32 was an expression of our State’s priorities, which value people over profits. We ask that you do not reward the bad faith conduct of a private corporation that subverts the rule of law, our democratic institutions and most importantly human life in its pursuit for profit.