ICE Contractor Tries to Scare Activists With Legal Threats, Free Speech Be Damned


It has been a rough week for the GEO Group, a private prison company that contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to lock up undocumented immigrants. And its making the contractor lash out in erratic fashion.
All week, activists have been raising for a national day of action against GEO Group, which has been profiting off of the Trump administrations war on undocumented immigrants. And on Tuesday, a federal judge certified a class action against GEO for systematic wage theft of detained immigrants, who are paid $1 a day as part of GEOs .
Under pressure from activists, GEO did what too many embattled corporations do: It threatened to sue. GEOs lawyers served a cease-and-desist on Dream Defenders, the Florida-based human rights organization that had called on allies to push their elected officials to cut ties with GEO, rally at GEO prisons and detention centers, and creatively disrupt GEO offices on August 7.
The letter accuses Dream Defenders of making knowingly false statements which likely give rise to... claims for defamation and tortious interference with GEOs contracts. Not content with making baseless defamation claims, GEO goes on to accuse Dream Defenders of inciting a dangerous disruption and encouraging threatening and violent behavior.
Neither of these allegations passes the laugh test. First, the allegedly defamatory statements that GEO separates and cages people, that it puts Black, Latino and poor White people into jail and that it asserts improper influence over the United States political system are protected statements on matters of public concern. As Dream Defenders nonplussed details, these are far from verifiably false statements, which GEO would need to show in a defamation lawsuit.
In fact, Dream Defenders statements are well founded. The response letter highlights factual support for each of the allegations cited in GEOs letter, from GEOs own promotional materials referencing their sale of steel cages to news reports of GEOs lucrative involvement in family separation.
Against the weight of lawsuits, news reports, and government investigations into the companys practices, GEOs contention that Dream Defenders spread information they knew to be false falls flat. The activists allegations are exactly the kind of political speech that is protected against government censorship and defamation civil lawsuits.
By the same token, calling on allies to creatively disrupt GEOs business-as-usual is quintessential political speech, not . GEO argues that Dream Defenders call for protest amounts to encouragement of unlawful behavior. But there are countless lawful ways for activists to heed Dream Defenders call for protest, and GEOs letter fails to identify a single statement by Dream Defenders that instructs activists to break the law. In any case, even speech encouraging unlawful action is protected by the First Amendment, as we recently argued to a federal appeals court. Although GEO considers Dream Defenders rhetoric reckless and incendiary, a call for protest is not a parliamentary motion, and activists are not required to observe Roberts Rules of Order. The First Amendment protects reckless and incendiary rhetoric, so long as it doesnt intentionally and directly incite immediate violence.
Cease-and-desist letters like GEOs can do serious damage to public discourse, even if the claims themselves are ultimately rejected in court. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP cases), like the one threatened here or the lawsuit filed last year against Greenpeace and other environmental groups, use the risks and costs of litigation to silence those who speak out against corporate malfeasance.
Facing outrageous damages claims and ruinous legal costs, many critics choose to self-censor rather than risk annihilation. Defending these cases is a heavy burden, particularly for nonprofit organizations like Dream Defenders, which dont have the same deep pockets as their corporate adversaries. Resources that should be spent on advocacy would be diverted to legal costs, which suits the corporate plaintiff just fine.
Thats why its important to respond loudly and clearly to groundless threats like the one GEO made in response to a week of bad press. To quote the Dream Defenders, .