Docket 24-758
Menocal
DecidedFeb 25, 2026
9-0decision
Source: CourtListener.
Federal contractors cannot immediately appeal a court's refusal to dismiss a lawsuit under the Yearsley defense
Impact4/10
What it does
The Court held that the Yearsley doctrine gives federal contractors a defense against being found liable, not an immunity from being sued in the first place. Because it is only a liability defense, a court's pretrial refusal to apply Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed — the contractor must wait until the case ends and then appeal if it loses. This closes off a procedural path that contractors had used to delay or derail litigation before trial.
Who benefits
People who file lawsuits against federal contractors — such as immigration detainees alleging forced labor — whose cases can now proceed to trial without being halted by an immediate contractor appeal of a Yearsley ruling.
Who is affected
Private companies that operate facilities or perform services under federal government contracts, who can no longer immediately appeal a trial court's refusal to dismiss a lawsuit on Yearsley grounds and must instead go through the full trial process before raising that defense on appeal.
Practical impact
Private detention operators, defense contractors, and other companies working under federal contracts can no longer halt a lawsuit mid-stream by immediately appealing a judge's refusal to apply Yearsley protection — they must go through discovery, trial, and final judgment first. For plaintiffs such as immigration detainees suing over labor conditions, this means their cases can move forward to trial without that procedural interruption. Contractors retain the right to raise the Yearsley defense at trial and on appeal after a final judgment, and may also seek a special certification from the district court under a separate statute (28 U.S.C. §1292(b)) if the legal question is unusually difficult and important.
Majority — Kagan
Joined by: Roberts, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Thomas, Alito
The majority held that the Yearsley doctrine — which says a contractor cannot be held liable for work the government lawfully authorized and directed — is a defense to liability, not an immunity from being sued. The Court reasoned that an immunity protects a defendant from going to trial at all, regardless of whether the defendant did anything wrong, while a merits defense only argues that the defendant acted lawfully and should not be found liable. Because Yearsley's protection disappears the moment a contractor acts outside its legal authorization or under an unlawful one, it is tied to the legality of the contractor's conduct — the hallmark of a defense, not an immunity. The Court also rejected GEO's argument that Yearsley grants "derivative sovereign immunity," pointing to a long line of cases holding that the government's own immunity from suit does not transfer to its contractors or agents. Since Yearsley is a merits defense, a court's pretrial refusal to apply it can be fully reviewed after a final judgment — meaning it does not qualify for the narrow category of rulings that can be appealed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine.
Constitutional question
When a district court refuses to dismiss a lawsuit against a federal contractor under the Yearsley doctrine — which protects contractors from liability for work the government lawfully authorized and directed — can the contractor immediately appeal that ruling before the case goes to trial?