In August 2016, the Obama administration announced that it would be phasing out federal private prison contracts like those held by GEO. The announcement sent GEO’s stocks tumbling. The next day, GEO contributed $100,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now, and it made another $125,000 contribution just one week before the election. At the time, Mike Pence was telling donors that giving to the super PAC was “one of the best ways to stop Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump our next president!” After Trump won, GEO gave $250,000 to the Trump Inaugural Committee.

GEO did not have to wait long to see its investment start to pay off. On Feb. 23, 2017, during his second full week on the job, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a one-paragraph memo reversing the Obama administration’s private prison phase-out, instead ordering officials to continue using for-profit facilities for federal inmates.

In April 2017, the Trump Administration awarded GEO a $110 million, 10-year federal contract to build and administer a new 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas. GEO expects $44 million a year in revenue from the facility. GEO also has enjoyed a soaring stock price; its stock shot up 21 percent the day after Trump won, and has continued to grow since then.

CLC filed an FEC complaint, which alleges that the contributions — made through a wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Corrections Holdings, Inc. — violated the ban on federal contractors giving money in federal elections. This law has been in place for 75 years to protect the integrity of the contracting process.

CLC filed this case against the FEC on January 10, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after waiting more than a year for the FEC to resolve this complaint. CLC hopes the lawsuit will compel the FEC to act. 

There is recent precedent for the FEC taking action against government contractors for giving to super PACs. In September 2017, the FEC responded to a CLC complaint and found that the Massachusetts-based Suffolk Construction Company violated campaign finance law by making two $100,000 donations to a Hillary Clinton-affiliated super PAC in 2015. That company agreed to pay a $34,000 fine.

The reason that federal contractors have been barred from making contributions for the past 75 years is to prevent pay-to-play in the contracting process. Public officials are supposed to make contracting decisions based on what is best for the public, not based on who spent the most money getting them elected. GEO Group’s illegal donations have the appearance of a pay-to-play: since Trump was elected with GEO’s backing, the company has reaped enormous political and financial benefits, including a new $110 million taxpayer-funded contract.

The FEC is critical to the enforcement of the contractor contribution ban and in preventing pay-to-play politics. It is incumbent upon the FEC to enforce the longstanding federal contribution ban and take action against GEO Group to deter future violations. Without the contractor ban, the government contracting process becomes an obvious way for officials to reward friends and political donors.

In a separate but related case, CLC filed a lawsuit on June 15, 2017 seeking to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disclose requested records that would gather information about how DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind official policy to phase-out the use of private prisons in the administration’s contracting process. Almost nine months later, the public still has not seen any documents that show how DOJ reached its decision to change course on its private prison policy.

Doe v. FEC is a case about a mystery donor's attempt to maintain secrecy around a $1.7 million donation to a super PAC whose spending was meant to influence the 2012 election. The nonprofit group Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought the original complaint against the super PAC, called Now or Never PAC, in February 2015 alleging that an unknown person made a contribution to Now or Never, violating the prohibition on contributions made in the name of another person.

CLC filed a motion to intervene in support of CREW's quest for transparency on January 3, 2018.

On March 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court issued an opinion that upheld the right of the Federal Election Commission to uphold its own disclosure policy and give the public the right to know the names of donors.

Importance of Case

Disclosure is critical because voters deserve to know the names of donors that are spending millions of dollars to influence their vote. Transparency is the foundation of an open democracy. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC must be permitted to keep extensive recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of campaign contributions in order to remedy pay-to-play politics.

The First Amendment guarantees every American’s right to free speech and peaceful protest. However, recent actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal law enforcement agents in Minnesota to quash dissent and retaliate against civilians for exercising these rights threaten the very foundation of the First Amendment.

Six plaintiffs whose constitutional rights were violated by ICE and other federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis filed a lawsuit to protect the constitutional rights of Minnesotans who film and observe ICE and other federal agents.  

In Minnesota, ICE and other federal agents have violently retaliated against and arrested peaceful observers and protestors who are exercising their constitutional rights. The ACLU’s lawsuit asks the court to halt ICE’s attack on First and Fourth Amendment rights.  

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit on behalf of 39 former career civil servants who worked in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to offer their unique professional perspectives.

The Special Litigation Section has primary responsibility for eliminating patterns or practices of illegal conduct by law enforcement agencies, including violations of First Amendment rights of protesters and observers. Many of the individuals on this brief have served in the Special Litigation Section under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

CLC and ICAP argue that ICE and other federal agents have engaged in the same types of conduct in Minnesota that DOJ has found to be unconstitutional First Amendment policing in prior investigations. We call on the court to hold federal law enforcement agencies accountable for clear First Amendment violations and ensure federal law enforcement agencies are subject to the same constitutional standards as any other law enforcement agency.  

President Trump’s deployment of federal agents to enforce his immigration policies does not grant federal agents the authority to undermine the First Amendment. Allowing federal agents to act outside the bounds of the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent that diminishes First Amendment rights. 

Shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump issued multiple executive orders (EOs) targeting major national law firms, several of which engage in election law and voting rights cases. The EOs directed all employees of these firms to be stripped of security clearances and denied access to federal buildings, as well as ordering federal agencies to halt any ongoing contracted work.  

Although several law firms bowed to the pressure and cut deals with the administration to avoid sanctions, four law firms sued, arguing that the EOs violated the First Amendment and their clients’ right to counsel.

It is clear that a major reason why these four firms are being targeted by the Trump administration is their legal representation or association with the president’s electoral and partisan opponents and their advocacy for voting rights. Several of these firms litigated multiple election-related lawsuits following the 2020 presidential election, including one firm which represented an opposing party in 60+ lawsuits in which President Trump or his allies attempted to overturn the results.  

Despite the claims of the government, the intention of these EOs was clearly not to protect the administration from a viable security threat — it is a blatant attempt to punish, intimidate and suppress the legal advocacy of anyone working against the current president’s political interests.  

CLC’s brief highlights how these EOs attempt to weaponize presidential power to retaliate against any law firm willing to advance voting rights or to represent the president’s political or electoral opponents. By doing so, the Trump administration unlawfully threatens these firms’ First Amendment right to bring these cases forward.  

What’s at Stake?

This attempt to suppress the free speech of legal advocates comes at the same time the administration actively seeks to exert control over our federal elections and usurp power constitutionally given to the states and Congress.  

This context illustrates why these EOs are not only a violation of the First Amendment but also a danger to our democracy; as CLC argues in our brief, voters need access to legal resources to both protect their individual rights and safeguard electoral processes like voter registration, redistricting and access to the ballot. Sanctioning attorneys for litigating against threats to the electoral process is just another way the president is attempting to limit the resources available to Americans seeking legal recourse.  

Election lawyers play a critical role in protecting the health of our democracy. A legal system that provides representation and pathways to justice to all Americans — regardless of political identity — is a strength, not a weakness, of our democracy. The courts must uphold the constitutional right for any law firm to choose who they represent and advance meaningful challenges to attempts by the president to unlawfully manipulate our elections.