FRESNO (LN) — U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi denied CoreCivic’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction on Friday, finding that the private prison operator did not show it was likely to ultimately bear the costs of implementing court-ordered changes to medical staffing, legal visitation, and outdoor recreation operated under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The preliminary injunction, issued through a series of orders in February and March 2026, requires ICE to ensure constitutionally adequate medical care, provide access to an independent external monitor for 120 days, ensure timely and confidential access to attorneys, and provide free temperature-appropriate clothing and at least one hour of outdoor recreation time per day.
CoreCivic argued that compliance with the injunction would cause operational disruptions and significant financial burdens. The company estimated it would need approximately $0.90 million per year to hire additional Nurse Practitioners and roughly $0.36 million annually for additional security officers to staff legal call booths and contact visitation rooms.
The court noted that CoreCivic had already incurred past costs to comply with the order, including $28,775 to subdivide legal visitation rooms and $64,468.33 to reconfigure virtual attorney visit booths, but found these expenses irrelevant to the stay analysis because they had already been paid.
Regarding anticipated costs, the court pointed to CoreCivic’s indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract with the government, which provides a mechanism for renegotiating rates if compliance results in a "documentable financial impact."
The court found that CoreCivic had not yet sought reimbursement under this provision and failed to explain why it would not be able to recoup compliance costs through the contract’s renegotiation process.
CoreCivic also argued that it suffered irreparable constitutional harm because the injunction imposed obligations on it without due process, as it was not a named party to the underlying case.
The court rejected this argument, noting that the injunction expressly enjoins only the actions of federal defendants and does not name CoreCivic, and that CoreCivic failed to cite caselaw supporting its theory that it was bound by the order.
Judge Tuchi also dismissed CoreCivic’s claim that the injunction’s use of terms like "adequate" and "timely" granted the external monitor unfettered discretion, ruling that the mere presence of uncertainty does not amount to irreparable harm when procedural mechanisms remain available to obtain clarification.
The court appointed Muthusamy Anandkumar as the external monitor to oversee compliance with the preliminary injunction.
CoreCivic has not yet indicated whether it plans to appeal the stay denial.