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.

Maurene Comey prosecuted some of the most high-profile cases in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in recent years. She routinely received “Outstanding” performance evaluations and capably served as a nonpartisan civil servant. Nevertheless, without any performance-related justification or explanation, she was fired in July 2025.

Comey’s termination seemingly was politically motivated and intended to serve as retaliation against her father, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration. Congress has long protected civil servants from discrimination based on partisan affiliation and disciplinary actions based on employees’ speech or association outside of work.  

Comey sued the federal government seeking reinstatement to her position as a federal prosecutor. CLC, representing Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, filed an amicus brief in support of Comey’s case.  

Our clients, Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, are committed advocates for the faithful, ethical and nonpartisan enforcement of federal law, and they have been important voices sounding the alarm on abuses of power within the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ).  

Justice Connection is composed of past DOJ employees concerned with the DOJ’s willingness to serve as a vehicle for unlawful political retribution.  

Michael Feinberg was an assistant special agent in charge with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In June 2025, Feinberg was informed he would not receive a promotion, and likely be demoted from his position at the bureau, seemingly because he maintained a private friendship with a former FBI colleague who FBI Director Kash Patel and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino deemed a political “enemy.”

In our amicus brief, CLC argues the district court should immediately decide Comey’s case to prevent a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of other civil servants, whether through associating with a friend or family member with outspoken political views or speaking out about important civic issues in their private lives.

Typically, civil servants must challenge their removals before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an adjudicatory body designed by Congress intended to be a “vigorous protector” of nonpartisanship and fairness in government employment policy. 

The Trump administration, however, has undermined the independence of the MSPB as an unbiased decisionmaker in numerous ways. The Trump administration wants to force civil servants to bring their cases of unlawful removals to the now-biased MSPB before they can get their day in court. CLC’s brief argues that the delay, expense and unfairness of the MSPB process would harm not only Comey, but other civil servants who are left to wonder whether any protection will be provided by the courts to stop such abuses of state power.

CLC’s brief argues that, when considering their jurisdiction over First Amendment cases, courts often consider harm to parties beyond the case. In the matter at hand, the consequences of Comey’s firing on the free speech rights of all civil servants is clear justification for swift intervention and ruling by the court.  

This case is an attempt to disrupt longstanding laws that safeguard the freedom to vote.

The Constitution gives the states significant power to regulate their own elections, unless Congress steps in and enacts a law setting uniform national standards for federal elections. Many states have used that power to pass laws that allow them to count mail-in ballots that are cast on or before Election Day but received by a deadline set a few days later. These laws ensure that all validly cast mail-in ballots get counted, even if they encounter postal delivery delays.  

In 2024, the Republican National Committee sued to challenge one such law in Mississippi, arguing that the federal Election Day statutes — which set federal elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. But this is contrary to longstanding law and practice.

Congress recently took action to clarify one of the key laws that regulates federal elections. If Congress wanted to change the rules for vote-by-mail receipt deadlines, they would have done so when they passed the Electoral Count Reform Act just three years ago. By declining to do so, Congress has already indicated that the rules set by states for mail-in ballot receipt deadlines do not need to be changed.

This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and argument is expected in 2026. If the Supreme Court overturns states’ longstanding ability to count legally cast ballots received after Election Day, it would disproportionately harm rural voters, elderly voters, overseas and military voters, and voters with disabilities.

Access to voting by mail, when offered in addition to early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters.

That’s why Campaign Legal Center is urging the Supreme Court to reject this effort.