The Denver-based federal appeals court dismissed an attempt by The GEO Group on Wednesday to appeal a trial judge’s non-existent decision two months before the company is scheduled to face a civil trial over alleged trafficking violations at the Aurora immigration detention facility it operates.

The class-action lawsuit, which has been pending since 2014, alleges that GEO Group violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act by requiring detainees to clean not just their personal space, but the common areas of the detention center under threat of solitary confinement. Those actions allegedly ran afoul of the law’s prohibition on knowingly coercing labor out of another person through serious harm or threats of serious harm.

The plaintiff detainees also alleged GEO Group unjustly enriched itself by paying them only $1 per day through a “voluntary” labor program.

In mid-August, GEO Group appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for the third time. On previous occasions, GEO Group challenged the class-action nature of the case and the denial of its claimed immunity defense. Both the 10th Circuit and, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the substance of the second appeal could not be addressed until after the November 2026 trial.

In April, GEO Group moved to end the case in its favor without a trial. It invoked a different type of immunity, qualified immunity, a judicially created doctrine that shields public employees from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person’s clearly established legal rights. U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane heard arguments in early June and said he would rule “in the very near future.”

Two months later, GEO Group filed its third appeal, challenging a decision that Kane had never made.

“GEO filed its motion over four months ago, and it has been over two months since this Court heard oral argument,” its lawyers wrote. “Allowing the litigation to progress any further — with trial less than three months away — would destroy the protections GEO is entitled to under qualified immunity.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs countered that Kane never denied qualified immunity, meaning there was nothing to appeal.

One day later, Kane himself issued an order deeming the appeal “frivolous.”

“In this case, GEO has waited twelve years to assert qualified immunity. It now contends that a delay of four months in receiving a decision on the matter is a constructive denial,” he wrote.

“Moreover, GEO’s tactics serve no purpose other than to delay,” he continued. “If GEO had wanted a decision on qualified immunity before having to face the burdens of litigation, it could have raised qualified immunity sooner; it could have sought a scheduling or pretrial order that prioritized a decision on qualified immunity; it could have avoided simultaneously bombarding the Court with other substantive filings involving hefty doctrines such as government contractor protections and preemption; it could have moved for a stay specifically related to its request for qualified immunity; and it could have sought clarification on the timing of the Court’s decision.”

On Sept. 9, a three-judge 10th Circuit panel agreed to dismiss the appeal.

In an unsigned order, the panel referenced a similar scenario from January in which government defendants in a Jefferson County civil lawsuit argued a trial judge’s allowance for limited evidence was, effectively, a denial of qualified immunity. The 10th Circuit disagreed, noting a judge’s decision unrelated to qualified immunity does not authorize a defendant to immediately appeal.

Similarly, the 10th Circuit pointed out that Kane had not decided the qualified immunity issue one way or the other.

“GEO’s appeal presented this court with no order to review at all. Failure to identify an order or judgment as the subject of the appeal could be fatal to GEO’s appeal,” wrote Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes and Judges Scott M. Matheson Jr. and Robert E. Bacharach.

The panel acknowledged the closeness of the trial date but noted that GEO Group waited 12 years after the case’s filing to request qualified immunity.

“While GEO had pursued other defenses earlier in the case, it asserted the qualified immunity defense long after discovery had closed and with trial preparation underway,” the panel wrote. “Given the procedural posture of the underlying case, we cannot say that the district court’s perceived delay in deciding GEO’s motion constitutes a refusal of GEO’s qualified immunity defense such that immediate appellate review is warranted.”

The panel dismissed the appeal.

The case is Menocal et al. v. The GEO Group, Inc.