Geo's opponents argue that private companies are not immune from government lawsuits. Instead, they say that if contractors act legally and follow government instructions properly, they can use that as a defense. The difference between immunity and defense is key: immunity will mean that contractors can avoid lawsuits entirely – if someone sues them, they can get out of it right away – while defense will usually mean that a contractor can be sued like anyone else and will have to go through a trial, possibly including discovery and a trial, before the court ultimately decides whether their defense will prevail. If the contractor only has a defense and not immunity, plaintiffs can still go to court.
Geo's opponents argue that granting immunity to contractors in the first place misses the point of immunity, which Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington says is to allow the government to do what it believes is in the public interest without constantly being subjected to legal action. But a commercial company acts in its private interests and not in the public interest. Geo's “dramatic expansion of sovereign immunity,” the group wrote in a court filing, “is contrary to the public interest in a responsive and effective government driven solely by the need to serve the American people.”
Even the Trump administration has come out against Geo, albeit in a more limited manner. He argues that contractor immunity should be determined by Congress or a special rule-making body, not a court decision.
