This federal contempt private prison settlement case demonstrates how courts enforce accountability when correctional companies violate agreements. When private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) falsified thousands of hours of staffing records at Idaho’s largest prison, it set in motion a landmark federal contempt proceeding that would expose systemic failures in private prison oversight.
Drawing from federal court filings, ACLU litigation documents, and KPMG forensic audit findings, this analysis examines how U.S. District Court Judge David Carter found that CCA had failed to meet minimum staffing requirements stipulated by the settlement agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, ultimately reshaping accountability standards for private prison operators.
Quick Answer Box
| Common Questions | Quick Answers |
|---|---|
| What did the court find CCA did at Idaho’s ICC? | CCA falsified staffing logs to make it appear that ICC was fully staffed, and CCA employees lied about the number of officers actually on duty. |
| What sanctions did the court impose on CCA for contempt? | The court granted the ACLU’s request to extend the order’s deadline by two years, compel CCA to hire an independent monitor, and fine CCA $100 an hour if more than 12 hours of guards are missing a month. |
| How many staffing hours did KPMG find were missing or falsified at ICC in 2012? | KPMG determined that CCA left more than 26,000 hours of mandatory guard posts unstaffed or inadequately covered in 2012, with nearly 4,800 staffing hours overreported during seven months. |
| Why did understaffing and falsified logs at ICC matter? | CCA was well aware that ICC had many more assaults than Idaho’s other prisons and had “ample reason” to make sure that ICC was fully staffed. |
| Did any criminal charges result from the ICC investigation? | The FBI initiated its investigation in March 2014 to determine whether CCA or its employees had defrauded the State of Idaho, but ultimately declined to press charges. |
At-a-Glance: Key Takeaways
- Massive Understaffing: KPMG determined that CCA left more than 26,000 hours of mandatory guard posts unstaffed or inadequately covered in 2012.
- Falsified Records: ICC had overreported nearly 4,800 staffing hours during seven months in 2012.
- Violence Epidemic: A study conducted by Idaho prison officials in 2008 found that ICC had “four times more prisoner-on-prisoner assaults than Idaho’s other seven publicly-operated prisons combined.”
- Extended Oversight: The Court extended the settlement agreement by two years with enhanced monitoring requirements.
- Financial Penalties: $100 per hour fine for future understaffing violations.
Table of Contents
Understanding the Original Settlement Agreement
The federal contempt private prison settlement proceedings stemmed from a 2011 Idaho Correctional Center lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of all prisoners at the Idaho Correctional Center (ICC). This federal contempt private prison settlement case would establish new precedents for enforcing constitutional standards in private correctional facilities. The facility, operated by CCA under a $29 million annual contract with the state, had earned the grim nickname “Gladiator School” due to rampant violence.
In September 2011, CCA and the ACLU reached a settlement agreement that required numerous improvements to reduce violence, including specific staffing requirements. CCA agreed to maintain minimum staffing levels, including a three-person “Warden’s Crew” for enhanced security response. The settlement was incorporated as a court order, giving the federal court continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance.
The Staffing Requirements
The settlement agreement mandated specific custody staffing levels that CCA was contractually obligated to maintain. These requirements weren’t arbitrary – they represented the minimum staffing necessary to maintain basic safety and security in a facility housing over 2,000 inmates. Christopher Zoukis, federal prison consultant and author of the Federal Prison Handbook, emphasizes that adequate staffing ratios are fundamental to preventing violence and ensuring constitutional conditions of confinement.
The Discovery of Falsified Records
The unraveling began when The Associated Press reported that there appeared to be anomalies in staffing reports that the Correction Corporation of America was giving the state. Those reports showed some correctional officers working for 48 hours straight. This impossible scenario triggered a deeper investigation.
An investigation determined that ICC had overreported nearly 4,800 staffing hours during a seven-month period in 2012. But this initial admission was just the tip of the iceberg. The reality was far worse than CCA’s limited disclosure suggested.
Applied Insight: In federal prison litigation, document falsification often indicates systemic operational failures. When correctional facilities falsify records, it typically reflects management decisions prioritizing profit over safety – a pattern that federal courts increasingly recognize as requiring aggressive judicial intervention.
The KPMG Forensic Audit
The Idaho Department of Corrections hired KPMG to conduct a comprehensive forensic audit of CCA’s staffing records. The findings were damning:
- 4,500 hours were double-logged by staff, 8,700 hours were filled by employees who are not even correctional officers, and 9,800 hours were lost because of late starts and early ends of guard shifts.
- KPMG determined that CCA left more than 26,000 hours of mandatory guard posts unstaffed or inadequately covered in 2012, representing one of the most extensive prison staffing violations documented in a federal settlement case.
- KPMG noted that its estimates were “conservative” and said, “It is possible that our analysis understates the number of hours that could potentially be identified as unstaffed.”
The Federal Contempt Proceedings
Legal Standards for Civil Contempt
Understanding the power of federal contempt is crucial to grasping the significance of Judge Carter’s ruling. A civil contempt has been traditionally viewed as the refusal of a person in a civil case to obey a mandatory order. It is incomplete in nature, may be purged by obedience to the court order, and does not involve a sentence for a definite period of time.
The distinction between civil and criminal contempt matters significantly. If it is for civil contempt, the punishment is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt, the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the court’s authority. Judge Carter’s findings clearly established this as civil contempt, focused on compelling future compliance rather than punishing past violations.
The Court’s Findings
After a two-day hearing in August 2013, Judge Carter issued a comprehensive ruling that found CCA contempt of court in a civil proceeding. The court’s analysis was methodical and devastating:
As the judge noted in his decision, these additional records and testimony showed “the non-compliance was far worse than the report of about 4,800 hours would lead one to believe”. The court found that:
- Intentional Understaffing: The court found that ICC warden Timothy Wengler intentionally understaffed the prison in direct violation of the settlement agreement and then issued reports to cover that fact.
- Knowledge of Violations: CCA knew or should have known it was in material breach of the agreement.
- Systemic Nature: The violations weren’t isolated incidents but represented a pattern of deliberate non-compliance.
- Lack of Candor: The court specifically points out that CCA has failed to be candid about the extent of understaffing at ICC.
Federal Contempt Remedies and Private Prison Settlement Enforcement
Judge Carter’s contempt order imposed comprehensive remedies designed to ensure future compliance through robust federal settlement enforcement mechanisms:
Extended Court Supervision
The court extended the settlement agreement for two additional years. The Ninth Circuit dismissed this argument, finding that CCA “failed to actually fill a substantial number of” the staffing positions it had agreed to, and knew or should have known the records were falsified. This extension wasn’t punitive but remedial – placing plaintiffs in the position they would have been in had CCA complied initially.
Independent Monitor
The court ordered CCA to hire an independent monitor to ensure ongoing compliance. This monitor would have unfettered access to staffing records and the authority to conduct unannounced inspections. The Bureau of Prisons’ own monitoring challenges with private facilities made this external oversight particularly crucial.
Prospective Fines
Perhaps most significantly, the court imposed prospective fines of $100 per hour for each mandatory post left unstaffed beyond a 12-hour monthly threshold. In response to CCA’s protest that hourly fines could lead to millions of dollars in liability for the company, the judge noted that CCA can avoid the fines by “living up to their promise in the Settlement Agreement”.
Applied Insight: The $100 hourly fine structure represents sophisticated judicial craftsmanship. By setting a clear financial consequence for future violations while allowing a reasonable buffer for operational flexibility, Judge Carter created a self-executing enforcement mechanism that doesn’t require constant court intervention. This approach has become a model for enforcing complex institutional reform agreements.
Attorney’s Fees
On Thursday, February 20, United States District Court Judge David Carter granted attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs in the Kelly v. Wengler contempt case. The fee award recognized the necessity of the ACLU’s enforcement efforts and the principle that violators of court orders should bear the costs of enforcement proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit’s Affirmation
CCA appealed the contempt order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging both the contempt finding and the remedies imposed. In May 2016, the appellate court upheld Judge Carter’s order in its entirety.
CCA first contended that the contempt finding was unjustified because it took “all reasonable measures” to comply with the settlement agreement once it realized it was out of compliance. The Ninth Circuit dismissed this argument. The appellate court found that CCA’s after-the-fact efforts couldn’t excuse its deliberate violations and cover-up.
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion emphasized that CCA “failed to actually fill a substantial number” of the staffing positions it had agreed to, and knew or should have known the records were falsified. This knowledge element was crucial – CCA couldn’t claim ignorance of its own systematic falsification scheme.
Broader Implications for Private Prison Oversight
The Pattern of CoreCivic Violations
The Idaho contempt case wasn’t an isolated incident. CoreCivic (CCA’s rebranded identity) has faced similar accountability issues nationwide:
- The leading private prison company in the U.S. has spent more than $4.4 million to settle dozens of complaints alleging mistreatment — including at least 22 inmate deaths — at its Tennessee prisons and jails since 2016.
- CoreCivic paid $56 million to settle a class action lawsuit, alleging it violated securities laws and caused stockholders to lose money.
- Multiple forced labor cases against CoreCivic allege that the company forced detained immigrants to work for as little as $1 per day under threat of deprivation of basic necessities and punishment, including solitary confinement.
Federal Oversight Challenges
The Department of Justice Inspector General’s findings reveal systemic problems with private prison oversight. Contract prisons had more frequent incidents per capita of contraband finds, assaults, uses of force, lockdowns, guilty findings on inmate discipline charges, and selected categories of grievances. These facilities confiscated eight times as many contraband cell phones and had higher rates of both inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults.
The Role of Financial Incentives
Reports have shown that private prisons gain profit by cutting costs and implementing “moderate reductions in staffing patterns, fringe benefits, and other labor-related costs”. The Idaho case exemplifies how these cost-cutting measures translate into dangerous conditions and legal violations.
Applied Insight: The economics of private incarceration create inherent conflicts between profit maximization and constitutional compliance. When companies are paid per diem rates regardless of staffing levels, the financial incentive to understaff becomes overwhelming. This structural problem requires aggressive judicial oversight and meaningful financial penalties for violations – exactly what Judge Carter’s order provided.
Criminal Investigation and Political Dimensions
While the civil contempt proceedings succeeded, efforts to pursue criminal charges proved more complicated. A federal judge even cited the police investigation in a contempt of court ruling against CCA, saying he wouldn’t take certain steps in his order because he didn’t want to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. However, it later emerged that no substantive criminal investigation occurred.
The political context is noteworthy: Both Governor Otter and many Idaho legislators accepted campaign contributions from CCA during recent election campaigns. While Governor Otter maintained that campaign contributions didn’t influence corrections policy, the appearance of conflict complicated enforcement efforts.
Lessons for Federal Criminal Defense
For federal criminal defense attorneys like Elizabeth Franklin-Best, who has spent over 20 years challenging wrongful convictions and unjust sentences, the CCA contempt case offers critical insights for protecting clients’ rights in institutional settings. Aggressive litigation becomes essential when correctional facilities violate court orders or settlement agreements. Understanding how appeals work in complex institutional cases like this is crucial for effective advocacy.
Christopher Zoukis, whose expertise in Bureau of Prisons policy has made him a leading federal prison consultant, notes that documentation is crucial. Inmates and their families should maintain detailed records of staffing shortages, violence, and other violations. These contemporaneous records can prove invaluable in subsequent litigation.
Key Strategies for Practitioners
- Document Everything: Maintain detailed logs of understaffing incidents and their consequences.
- Pursue Administrative Remedies: Exhaust internal grievance procedures to preserve litigation options.
- Coordinate with Advocacy Organizations: Groups like the ACLU have resources for systemic litigation.
- Request Judicial Recommendations: Ask sentencing judges to recommend against placement in problematic facilities.
- Monitor Compliance: After obtaining relief, vigilantly monitor for violations.
The Current State of Private Prison Oversight
Federal Policy Changes
Though implementation remains incomplete, the Biden administration’s executive order directed the DOJ to phase out private prison contracts. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has ended all contracts with privately-managed prisons. The contract with the last private prison, McRae Correctional Facility, located in McRae, Georgia, ended on November 30, 2022.
The Federal Prison Oversight Act
The 2024 Federal Prison Oversight Act creates new accountability mechanisms. The law gives the Department of Justice’s inspector general office new authority to inspect all the federal prisons and publish its findings regularly. The law also establishes an independent ombudsman office to investigate complaints.
Ongoing Challenges
Despite reforms, challenges persist:
- Tennessee’s Department of Correction is requesting a $6.8 million contract increase for CoreCivic despite penalizing the company $44.78 million since 2022 for contractual shortfalls
- State-level contracts continue with minimal oversight
- Immigration detention remains heavily privatized
Federal Contempt Private Prison Settlement FAQs
What is civil contempt of court in federal cases?
Civil contempt is a court’s power to compel compliance with its orders through remedial sanctions. Unlike criminal contempt, which punishes past violations, civil contempt aims to coerce future compliance through fines or extended supervision.
Can private prison companies be held criminally liable for falsifying records?
Yes, falsifying records submitted to government agencies can constitute federal crimes, including fraud and false statements. However, prosecutors must prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be challenging in corporate contexts.
How do settlement agreements become enforceable court orders?
When parties settle federal litigation, they typically ask the court to retain jurisdiction and incorporate the agreement into a consent decree. This transforms the private agreement into an enforceable court order.
What remedies are available when private prisons violate settlement agreements?
Courts can impose various remedies, including contempt sanctions, appointment of monitors or special masters, prospective fines, extended oversight periods, and, in extreme cases, receivership or contract termination.
How does understaffing in prisons violate constitutional rights?
Deliberate understaffing that creates substantial risks of serious harm can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have found adequate staffing necessary to maintain basic safety and security.
What role do forensic audits play in prison litigation?
Forensic audits by firms like KPMG provide independent verification of alleged violations. These audits use specialized techniques to detect falsified records and quantify the extent of non-compliance, providing courts with reliable evidence.
Can individual prison officials be held personally liable for contempt?
Courts can hold individuals in contempt if they violate court orders or direct others to do so. This personal liability can include civil sanctions and criminal contempt charges in appropriate cases.
How do independent monitors ensure prison compliance?
Court-appointed monitors have broad access to facilities, records, and staff. They conduct regular inspections, review documentation, interview inmates and employees, and report findings directly to the court, bypassing institutional chains of command.
What happens if a prison violates court orders after being held in contempt?
Courts can escalate sanctions, including increased fines, additional oversight measures, or, in extreme cases, the appointment of a receiver to assume operational control of the facility.
How can inmates or families report settlement violations?
Inmates should first use internal grievance procedures to document issues. Families can contact the attorneys who negotiated the settlement, file complaints with oversight agencies, or seek assistance from prisoner advocacy organizations.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The Idaho CCA contempt case is a watershed moment in private prison accountability. By exposing systematic falsification of records and imposing meaningful consequences, Judge Carter’s order demonstrated that federal courts will not tolerate corporate defendants flouting settlement agreements designed to protect constitutional rights.
The case underscores the importance of vigilant legal advocacy for those facing federal incarceration or dealing with violations of their rights while imprisoned. When correctional facilities—whether public or private—violate court orders or constitutional standards, aggressive litigation remains the most effective remedy. Federal defendants should also explore rehabilitation programs like RDAP and benefits under the First Step Act to minimize incarceration time and improve conditions.
If you or a loved one faces federal criminal charges or experiences constitutional violations while incarcerated, the expertise of a seasoned federal criminal defense lawyer becomes invaluable. Elizabeth Franklin-Best P.C. offers comprehensive federal criminal defense services, from trial representation through appeals and post-conviction relief. Understanding programs like the First Step Act and the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) can be crucial for sentence reduction and early release from prison strategies.
Schedule your one-hour initial consultation today to discuss your case with attorneys who understand the complexities of federal criminal law and the realities of the federal prison system. Contact us to protect your rights and explore your legal options.
Published Nov 15, 2013 by Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA | Last Updated by Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA on Sep 27, 2025 at 11:51 pm