The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied GEO Group Inc.'s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in *The GEO Group, Inc. v. Inslee* (9th Cir. 2026), a case challenging Washington state's House Bill 1470, which establishes protections for civil detainees at immigration facilities. The February 11 order represents the latest development in an ongoing legal battle between the private prison company and Washington state officials over regulatory authority at immigration detention centers.
The case centers on House Bill 1470, a Washington law designed to protect the health and safety of civil detainees held at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center. GEO Group, which operates the facility, had sought a preliminary injunction against Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Robert Ferguson to prevent enforcement of Sections 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the law.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, had previously vacated the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction and granted in part GEO's motion to remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. GEO Group then petitioned for both panel rehearing and en banc review, both of which the court denied.
In a statement accompanying the denial of rehearing en banc, Judges Fletcher, Gould, and Nguyen defended the panel's original decision, writing that the court correctly determined the appropriate comparators for GEO's civil detention facility. The judges explained that the proper comparison is not to Washington's jails and prisons, but rather to "two types of involuntary civil detainment facilities—residential treatment facilities for people with mental and substance abuse disorders, and involuntary civil commitment facilities that hold individuals, such as mentally ill patients."
This distinction proves crucial to the legal analysis, as it affects how courts evaluate whether state regulations impermissibly interfere with federal immigration enforcement operations. By categorizing immigration detention facilities alongside other civil commitment facilities rather than criminal justice institutions, the panel's approach suggests greater state regulatory authority over conditions of confinement.
However, the decision sparked significant disagreement within the circuit. Judge Bumatay authored a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by eight other judges: Judges Callahan, Bennett, R. Nelson, Collins, Bress, VanDyke, and Tung. The dissenting judges argued that the court should have reviewed the case en banc and affirmed the district court's original injunction blocking the state regulation.
While the full text of Judge Bumatay's dissent was not included in the available court documents, his position suggests a fundamental disagreement over the appropriate legal framework for analyzing state regulation of federal immigration detention facilities. The dissenting judges apparently view federal immigration detention centers as more analogous to traditional correctional facilities, which would limit state regulatory authority under principles of intergovernmental immunity and federal preemption.
The legal dispute reflects broader tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state regulatory authority. Immigration detention facilities operate under federal oversight but must comply with various state and local regulations covering health, safety, and operational standards. When these requirements conflict, courts must determine whether federal interests preempt state law or whether states retain authority to regulate conditions within their borders.
House Bill 1470 represents Washington state's effort to establish minimum standards for civil detainees at immigration facilities within the state. The law's specific provisions targeting the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center suggest legislative concern about conditions at the GEO Group-operated facility.
The case involves complex questions of intergovernmental immunity and federal preemption doctrine. Federal facilities and contractors typically enjoy some protection from state regulation when it interferes with federal operations, but the extent of this immunity varies depending on the specific regulatory context and federal interests at stake.
GEO Group operates numerous immigration detention facilities under contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company has faced various legal challenges regarding conditions at its facilities, making the Washington case part of a broader pattern of litigation over private immigration detention operations.
The denial of rehearing means the Ninth Circuit's original decision stands, allowing Washington's House Bill 1470 to move forward toward implementation. However, the case will return to the district court for further proceedings on the remanded portions of GEO Group's challenge.
The significant dissent suggests this area of law remains unsettled within the Ninth Circuit, with nearly half the participating judges disagreeing with the panel's approach. This division could influence future cases involving state regulation of federal immigration facilities and may eventually prompt Supreme Court review if similar splits develop in other circuits.
The outcome affects not only the specific Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center but also establishes precedent for how courts will analyze state regulatory authority over civil immigration detention facilities throughout the western United States.