Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Claims and Assessments On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley (“Mr. Zoley”), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans (“Mr. Evans”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, and operational and compliance policies, specifically related to the Company’s COVID-19 response procedures. The lawsuit is brought by Steve Hartel individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period between February 27, 2020 through and including June 16, 2020. The complaint alleges that the Company, Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiff, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the initial complaint and setting a deadline of November 17, 2020 for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. As previously reported and described in the Company's prior periodic reports, including most recently in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state’s minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The Court certified a nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are successful on the merits of their claims. On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Washington Attorney General’s Tacoma lawsuit based on the Company’s position that its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be ultimately determined at trial. On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on “standby” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, “which is still ‘raging and explosive’” in the jurisdiction. As a result, a probable trial date is unknown. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits. On June 30, 2020, the Immigrant Legal Resources Center and Freedom for Immigrants filed a petition for writ of mandate in California state court in Bakersfield, California. The petitioners challenge compliance with California administrative law regarding the number of public hearings and allowing public access to public hearings for review of conditional use permits for the Central Valley and Golden State facilities that house federal immigration detainees. The City of McFarland and the City of McFarland Planning Commission are named as respondents and the Company is named as the real party in interest. The petitioners also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order in state court seeking to prevent respondents from amending conditional use permits to allow housing federal immigration detainees at the Central Valley and Golden State facilities. The Company and respondents immediately removed the lawsuit to federal court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento, California by filing a notice of removal on July 10, 2020. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court, seeking the same injunctive relief. The federal court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from amending conditional use permits that would permit housing federal detainees at Central Valley and Golden State. The federal court further ordered the Company and respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending resolution of the lawsuit. The Company and respondents immediately moved for an emergency stay with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which was granted on September 1, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction and determined that the City of McFarland fully complied with California administrative law with the requisite public hearings, the appropriate notice to the public and permitting public comments in a lawfully compliant manner. The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred. On December 30, 2019, GEO filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging California’s newly enacted law - Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) - which bars the federal government from engaging GEO or any other government contractors to provide detention services for illegal immigrants. GEO’s claims, as described in the lawsuit, are grounded in authoritative legal doctrine that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal government is free from regulation by any state. By prohibiting federal detention facilities in California, the lawsuit argues AB-32 substantially interferes with the ability of U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) and ICE to carry out detention responsibilities for the federal government. Secondly, because AB-32 creates exceptions to the State of California when using GEO or any government contractors (to alleviate overcrowding), California’s statute unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. On December 31, 2019, GEO filed its motion for a preliminary injunction restraining California’s Governor and Attorney General from enforcing AB-32 against GEO’s detention facilities on behalf of USMS and ICE. On January 24, 2020, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging AB-32. The court heard both GEO and the United States’ motions for preliminary injunction on July 16, 2020. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and will render an opinion sometime after the filing deadline of August 18, 2020. On July 20, 2020 the court consolidated both lawsuits. On October 8, 2020, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying in part, the Company and the Untied State’s motions and California’s motion to dismiss. Among other findings, the court (1) dismissed the Company’s intergovernmental immunity claims as well as the United States’ preemption claims as applied to ICE facilities; (2) found that the Company and the United States were likely to succeed on the preemption claims as applied to U.S. Marshals’ facilities and enjoined enforcing AB-32 against those facilities; and (3) refused to enjoin California from enforcing AB-32 against ICE contracts with the Company and the United States. The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company accrues for legal costs associated with loss contingencies when those costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other Assessment A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had previously processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest related to the assessment is approximately $19.4 million. The Company has filed an administrative protest and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter. Ransomware Attack On November 3, 2020, the Company began the process of notifying current and former employees and will provide additional notifications as required by applicable state and federal law regarding a ransomware attack that impacted a portion of GEO’s information technology systems and a limited amount of data that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information. GEO promptly launched an investigation, engaged legal counsel and other incident response professionals, and notified its customers and law enforcement in response to the incident. GEO implemented a number of containment and remediation measures to address the incident, restore its systems and reinforce the security of its networks and information technology systems. The Company recovered its critical operating data and the incident has not had a significant impact on the Company's business operations or its ability to perform the services required under GEO's contracts with its government customers to or the individuals entrusted to GEO's facilities and programs. At this time, the Company is not aware of any fraud or misuse of information as a result of the incident. Additionally, the Company’s financial reporting controls and procedures were not impacted and as a result, the incident did not affect the Company's ability to report accurate financial information in a timely manner. Based on the information currently known and obtained through the investigation of the incident, the Company does not believe the incident will have a material impact on its business, operations or financial results. The Company carries insurance, including cyber insurance, commensurate with its size and the nature of its operations. CARES Act On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, allows employers to defer the deposit and payment of the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The deferral applies to deposits and payments of the employer’s share of Social Security tax that would otherwise be required to be made during the period beginning on March 27, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020. The deferred amounts are due to be paid in two equal installments on December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022. As a result of the CARES Act, the Company has deferred the payment of approximately $27.6 million related to these payroll taxes as of September 30, 2020. Commitments The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing active capital projects will be approximately $62 million of which $42 million was spent through the first nine months of 2020. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $20 million which will be spent through the remainder of 2020. Idle Facilities As of September 30, 2020, the Company was marketing approximately 2,100 vacant beds at four of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities, which are included in Property and Equipment, Net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, totaled $50.5 million as of September 30, 2020, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities at September 30, 2020.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley (“Mr. Zoley”), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans (“Mr. Evans”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, and operational and compliance policies, specifically related to the Company’s COVID-19 response procedures. The lawsuit is brought by Steve Hartel individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period between February 27, 2020 through and including June 16, 2020. The complaint alleges that the Company, Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiff, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the initial complaint and setting a deadline of November 17, 2020 for plaintiffs to amend the complaint.

As previously reported and described in the Company's prior periodic reports, including most recently in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state’s minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The Court certified a nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are successful on the merits of their claims. On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Washington Attorney General’s Tacoma lawsuit based on the Company’s position that its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's

intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be ultimately determined at trial. On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on “standby” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, “which is still ‘raging and explosive’” in the jurisdiction. As a result, a probable trial date is unknown. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.

On June 30, 2020, the Immigrant Legal Resources Center and Freedom for Immigrants filed a petition for writ of mandate in California state court in Bakersfield, California. The petitioners challenge compliance with California administrative law regarding the number of public hearings and allowing public access to public hearings for review of conditional use permits for the Central Valley and Golden State facilities that house federal immigration detainees. The City of McFarland and the City of McFarland Planning Commission are named as respondents and the Company is named as the real party in interest. The petitioners also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order in state court seeking to prevent respondents from amending conditional use permits to allow housing federal immigration detainees at the Central Valley and Golden State facilities. The Company and respondents immediately removed the lawsuit to federal court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento, California by filing a notice of removal on July 10, 2020. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court, seeking the same injunctive relief. The federal court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from amending conditional use permits that would permit housing federal detainees at Central Valley and Golden State. The federal court further ordered the Company and respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending resolution of the lawsuit. The Company and respondents immediately moved for an emergency stay with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which was granted on September 1, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction and determined that the City of McFarland fully complied with California administrative law with the requisite public hearings, the appropriate notice to the public and permitting public comments in a lawfully compliant manner.

The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred.

On December 30, 2019, GEO filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging California’s newly enacted law - Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) - which bars the federal government from engaging GEO or any other government contractors to provide detention services for illegal immigrants. GEO’s claims, as described in the lawsuit, are grounded in authoritative legal doctrine that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal government is free from regulation by any state. By prohibiting federal detention facilities in California, the lawsuit argues AB-32 substantially interferes with the ability of U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) and ICE to carry out detention responsibilities for the federal government. Secondly, because AB-32 creates exceptions to the State of California when using GEO or any government contractors (to alleviate overcrowding), California’s statute unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. On December 31, 2019, GEO filed its motion for a preliminary injunction restraining California’s Governor and Attorney General from enforcing AB-32 against GEO’s detention facilities on behalf of USMS and ICE. On January 24, 2020, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging AB-32. The court heard both GEO and the United States’ motions for preliminary injunction on July 16, 2020. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and will render an opinion sometime after the filing deadline of August 18, 2020. On July 20, 2020 the court consolidated both lawsuits. On October 8, 2020, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying in part, the Company and the Untied State’s motions and California’s motion to dismiss. Among other findings, the court (1) dismissed the Company’s intergovernmental immunity claims as well as the United States’ preemption claims as applied to ICE facilities; (2) found that the Company and the United States were likely to succeed on the preemption claims as applied to U.S. Marshals’ facilities and enjoined enforcing AB-32 against those facilities; and (3) refused to enjoin California from enforcing AB-32 against ICE contracts with the Company and the United States.

The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company accrues for legal costs associated with loss contingencies when those costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Assessment

A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had previously processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest related to the assessment is approximately $19.4 million. The Company has filed an administrative protest and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter.

Ransomware Attack

On November 3, 2020, the Company began the process of notifying current and former employees and will provide additional notifications as required by applicable state and federal law regarding a ransomware attack that impacted a portion of GEO’s information technology systems and a limited amount of data that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information. GEO promptly launched an investigation, engaged legal counsel and other incident response professionals, and notified its customers and law enforcement in response to the incident. GEO implemented a number of containment and remediation measures to address the incident, restore its systems and reinforce the security of its networks and information technology systems. The Company recovered its critical operating data and the incident has not had a significant impact on the Company's business operations or its ability to perform the services required under GEO's contracts with its government customers to or the individuals entrusted to GEO's facilities and programs. At this time, the Company is not aware of any fraud or misuse of information as a result of the incident. Additionally, the Company’s financial reporting controls and procedures were not impacted and as a result, the incident did not affect the Company's ability to report accurate financial information in a timely manner. Based on the information currently known and obtained through the investigation of the incident, the Company does not believe the incident will have a material impact on its business, operations or financial results. The Company carries insurance, including cyber insurance, commensurate with its size and the nature of its operations.

CARES Act

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, allows employers to defer the deposit and payment of the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The deferral applies to deposits and payments of the employer’s share of Social Security tax that would otherwise be required to be made during the period beginning on March 27, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020. The deferred amounts are due to be paid in two equal installments on December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022. As a result of the CARES Act, the Company has deferred the payment of approximately $27.6 million related to these payroll taxes as of September 30, 2020.

Commitments

The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing active capital projects will be approximately $62 million of which $42 million was spent through the first nine months of 2020. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $20 million which will be spent through the remainder of 2020.

Idle Facilities

As of September 30, 2020, the Company was marketing approximately 2,100 vacant beds at four of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities, which are included in Property and Equipment, Net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, totaled $50.5 million as of September 30, 2020, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities at September 30, 2020.