On Monday, Florida’s Attorney General formally requested that the U.S. Supreme Court permit enforcement of a controversial new immigration statute, which criminalizes the presence of individuals unlawfully residing in the U.S. who enter Florida.
This move marks a significant chapter in the prolonged legal standoff between Attorney General James Uthmeier and U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams. Recently, Judge Williams held Uthmeier in contempt for instructing officers to apply the new law in spite of the injunction, which mandates halting enforcement until a constitutional determination is made.
In its appeal, the attorney general’s office argued that Florida must have the ability to shield itself from the adverse impacts of illegal immigration through the application of this legislation, which aligns with prevailing federal law. The legal team contended that the injunction unfairly prevents enforcement by all state officers, many of whom have not been involved in the lawsuit.
The legislation, initiated by Governor Ron DeSantis in February, was designed to reinforce President Donald Trump’s commitment to stricter immigration controls, even as similar measures face legal hurdles in federal courts.
Following the signing of the bill, immigrant rights organizations promptly filed suits on behalf of two anonymous immigrants residing in Florida without legal status. The lawsuit challenged the new law, claiming it infringes on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by overstepping federal jurisdiction.
In April, Judge Williams issued a temporary restraining order coupled with an injunction to prevent the statewide enactment of the law. An attempt by the attorney general to have the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturn this decision proved unsuccessful.
Initially, Uthmeier instructed police and local law enforcement officers to comply with the injunction, albeit with vocal opposition to it. However, the situation escalated when, just days later, he circulated another memo asserting that the judge’s directive was legally unsound, thus suggesting that officers could still uphold the law.
The appellate court recognized Uthmeier’s complexity of the situation, acknowledging his belief that the district court’s order was overly comprehensive. Nevertheless, they criticized his subsequent actions, remarking that creating even an implicit threat to disobey the injunction was uncalled for.