US supreme court blocks Florida from enforcing anti-immigration law
The justices denied a request by state officials to lift an order by the Florida-based US district judge Kathleen Williams that barred them from carrying out arrests and prosecutions under the law while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts. Williams ruled that Florida's law conflicted with the federal government's authority over immigration policy.
The law, signed by the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, in February and backed by the Trump administration, made it a felony for some undocumented migrants to enter Florida, while also imposing pre-trial jail time without bond.
'This denial reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. 'It is past time for states to get the message.'
After Williams blocked the law, Florida's attorney general, James Uthmeier, a Republican, and other state officials filed the emergency request on 17 June asking the supreme court to halt the judge's order. Williams had found that the Florida law was probably unconstitutional for encroaching on the federal government's exclusive authority over US immigration policy.
The state's request to the justices was backed by America First Legal, a conservative group co-founded by Stephen Miller, a senior aide to Donald Trump and a key architect of the administration's hardline immigration policies.
Florida's immigration measure, called SB 4-C, was passed by the state's Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by DeSantis. It made Florida one of at least seven states to pass such laws in recent years, according to court filings.
The American Civil Liberties Union in April sued in federal court to challenge the law, arguing that the state should not be able to 'enforce its own state immigration system outside of federal supervision and control'. Williams agreed.
The law imposed mandatory minimum sentences for undocumented adult immigrants who are convicted of entering Florida after arriving in the United States without following federal immigration law. Florida officials contend that the state measure complies with – rather than conflicts with – federal law.
Sentences for violations begin at nine months' imprisonment for first offenders and reach up to five years for certain undocumented immigrants in the country who have felony records and enter Florida after having been deported or ordered by a federal judge to be removed from the United States.
The state law exempts undocumented immigrants in the country who were given certain authorization by the federal government to remain in the United States. Florida's immigration crackdown makes no exceptions, however, for those seeking humanitarian protection or with pending applications for immigration relief, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued in federal court to challenge the law.
The ACLU filed a class-action suit on behalf of two undocumented immigrants who reside in Florida, an immigration advocacy group called the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the non-profit group Farmworker Association of Florida, whose members include immigrants in the United States illegally who travel in and out of Florida seasonally to harvest crops. Some of the arguments in the lawsuit included claims that it violates the federal 'commerce clause', which bars states from blocking commerce between states.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, in a statement issued after the challenge was filed said that Florida's law 'is not just unconstitutional – it's cruel and dangerous'.
Williams issued a preliminary injunction in April that barred Florida officials from enforcing the measure.
The Atlanta-based 11th US circuit court of appeals in June upheld the judge's ruling, prompting the Florida officials to make an emergency request to the supreme court.
In a filing on 7 July, the state of Florida pointed to a brief filed by the Trump administration in the appeals case, in support of SB 4-C. 'That decision is wrong and should be reversed,' administration lawyers wrote at the time.
On the same day that Florida's attorney general filed the state's supreme court request, Williams found him in civil contempt of court for failing to follow her order to direct all state law enforcement officers not to enforce the immigration measure while it remained blocked by the judge. Williams said that Uthmeier only informed the state law enforcement agencies about her order and later instructed them to arrest people anyway. Williams ordered Uthmeier to provide an update to the court every two weeks on any enforcement of the law.
Other states have tried to pass similar laws, including Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho and Iowa, which have attempted to make entering their jurisdictions, while undocumented, a state crime.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
RFK Jr. looks to boot panel that decided which HIV and cancer screenings would be free: report
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reportedly planning to remove all the members of an influential health task force that helps determine what preventative care services insurers must cover for free, after removing all members of a vaccine advisory board last month. Kennedy wants to clean house at U.S. Preventative Services Task Force next because he believes its 16 members have become too 'woke,' The Wall Street Journal reports. Under 2010's Affordable Care Act, the task force makes evidence-based, public recommendations on a variety of treatments, ranging HIV prevention to prenatal care to mental health, that insurers must cover at no cost to patients. Health and Human Services has said the secretary hasn't made a final decision regarding the task force. The Independent has contacted the agency for comment. Kennedy's reported dissatisfaction with the group comes after the American Conservative magazine accused the task force of being a 'festering corner of woke bureaucracy' in an article earlier this month. 'The task force is packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine,' the author argued, pointing to 'sinister' recent task force actions committing to removing racial inequities in health care and using more inclusive language around gender. Earlier this month, a July meeting of the task force was postponed. At the time, a letter from over 100 health organizations warned about the politicization of the task force's work. 'The loss of trustworthiness in the rigorous and nonpartisan work of the Task Force would devastate patients, hospital systems, and payers as misinformation creates barriers to accessing lifesaving and cost effective care,' the letter reads. 'When something works well and helps inform doctors about how to take care of their patients, to postpone the task force's work just doesn't make any sense,' Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, told The New York Times after the meeting was postponed. 'This flies in the face of what is good for the country's health.' In June, the Supreme Court upheld the task force's ability to recommend free coverage for preventative services, in the face of a challenge from individuals and businesses objecting to the body's recommendation regarding HIV prevention medication. Concern over the fate of the task force comes after Kennedy removed all the members of a vaccine advisory board, replacing them with some members who share the secretary's vaccine skepticism.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump bids to release Epstein grand jury files – what secrets might they hold?
As Donald Trump reels from political fallout related to his justice department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, the US president has directed his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, to 'release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval'. It is an effort at damage control for a White House now engulfed in endless speculation – especially among Trump's previously devoted Maga base – about the extent of Trump's relationship with the late, disgraced sex trafficker and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019. Justice department attorneys quickly filed paperwork in Manhattan and south Florida federal courts requesting unsealing of grand jury testimony for Epstein. Justice department officials have also asked a New York judge to release grand jury transcripts for Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's sometimes girlfriend and longtime confidante who in 2021 was convicted of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls into his orbit. A grand jury is a panel that decides whether evidence presented by prosecutors shows 'probable cause' that someone committed a crime, and whether they should be tried. Should the grand jury, which is not the trial jury, find that there is sufficient evidence, an indictment will be issued. But veteran US attorneys, including those who have represented Epstein victims, told the Guardian that any release of grand jury transcripts around Epstein and Maxwell might not provide much insight into Epstein's crimes and whether others were involved in abusing minors – or in covering up his years of predation of young girls and women. The lawyers, however, insist that meaningful information does exist in yet-to-be released Epstein files held by federal law enforcement authorities from multiple investigations into Epstein. Whether the political will – and legal ability – exists to release any or all of those files remains to be seen. 'Grand juries serve two functions: to indict and to investigate. The transcripts may contain testimony of victims or cooperating witnesses if the grand jury was investigating Epstein,' Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, and a former federal prosecutor, said of grand jury processes. The grand jury transcripts could include graphic and explicit evidence, but they could also include more pro forma information about the actions of Epstein and Maxwell, who is serving jail time in Florida. 'If they were indicting Epstein, we can expect to see law enforcement witnesses summarizing the evidence of probable cause to support the charges. That would probably be less interesting, and similar to the factual allegations in the Epstein indictment,' Rahmani said. He added: 'There is likely much more salacious evidence out there than the grand jury transcripts. 'The FBI interview summaries and internal Department of Justice memoranda probably contain the juiciest details. The grand jury transcripts are just a small part of the picture. If Bondi was serious about transparency, she would make public the complete Epstein files, subject to redactions to protect the privacy rights of the victims.' Top lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented multiple Epstein victims, said government files should be made public with several exceptions, such as redaction of victims' names and identifying information, attorney-client communications and material depicting abuse. 'I think there is information that the government could release, such as texts, emails and other electronic communications of Jeffrey Epstein and anyone with whom he communicated. In addition, any communications on behalf of Mr Epstein made by his employees who may have played a part in recruiting or dealing with victims at the request of Mr Epstein and/or Ms Maxwell could be released,' Allred said. 'All evidence in the file of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York which was gathered for the prosecution of Mr Epstein, with the exceptions which I have listed previously, could be released.' Allred believes 'all files, both federal and state that reflect the investigation and potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida should also be made public'. Thorough investigations of Epstein were conducted in New York and Florida, Allred pointed out, and those investigations would be in those files. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments. 'The real documents that the public needs to see are the documents maintained by the FBI and Department of Justice. They have thousands of hours of videotapes and investigative memos and documents regarding the data that was seized at his homes,' he said. Kuvin said that unsealing grand jury testimony was a 'good first step' but limits information to four victims over whom Epstein was charged in New York. 'I am aware that the FBI had interviewed over 40 girls during their investigations. Where are those interviews, where are those reports? 'The abusers should be disclosed to the public so that we may all know who they are,' Kuvin also said, insisting that victims' privacy must be protected in such a process. He called on Trump to act. 'This administration could end the dispute tomorrow by the president signing an executive order demanding the release of all the material in the custody of the FBI and DoJ,' Kuvin said. 'Either Trump has the power to do this, or he must admit that he is not as powerful as he has professed to be to the public and his Maga followers.' Trump's current political woes stem from his backtracking on previous vows to release the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, he vowed to declassify the files, but then attracted scathing criticism when his justice department released a memo claiming that there was no 'incriminating' client list within the tranche of documents related to Epstein. The justice department's claim that they did not find evidence implicating third parties has further fanned the flames of suspicion, especially as last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Bondi had warned Trump that his name appears in the files. A smattering of reports highlighting Trump's friendship with Epstein several decades ago – which reportedly ended following a real estate dispute, several years before the late financier admitted to a state-level charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida – has proved yet another political minefield. Even if federal authorities and Trump drag their feet in releasing these documents, it is possible that new civil litigation could eventually force them to do so raising the prospect of yet more political scandals heading Trump's way. Maria Farmer, an Epstein survivor who in 1996 told authorities he and Maxwell were abusing minors including her sister, is suing the federal government over their handling of these claims. Farmer's suit alleges that the FBI 'chose to do absolutely nothing'. Farmer also claims that the FBI agent taking her call 'hung up on her, and no one at the FBI attempted to follow up with her or pursue her valid and serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if not decades, with wide-ranging tragic consequences.' If this litigation progresses, both sides would exchange evidence related to the claims in a process called discovery. While discovery is typically subject to a confidentiality agreement, and solidified by a court order, information from this exchange could come up in subsequent court papers that are public. 'What this lawsuit could reveal is what the FBI and the department did and did not do, what they failed to do – they failed to do their job,' Farmer's attorney, Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, told the Guardian. Freeman noted, for example, that she has a redacted set of pages from what appears to be a 2006 field interview with Farmer, during which an FBI agent went to her home and spoke with her. Freeman said she had some 20 pages of handwritten notes, 'many of which are redacted'. She said: 'That's the kind of information we need. It's redacted. I've been trying to get this information for years now, through Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but we've been stymied every time.' Neither the White House nor Department of Justice commented.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
New study reveals crippling impact of California's minimum wage hike
California 's dramatic fast food wage hike may have backfired, according to a new economic study – wiping out an estimated 18,000 jobs across the state in just one year. The research, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), analyzed the impact of Assembly Bill 1228, which mandated a $20 hourly minimum wage for fast food workers at large chains starting April 1, 2024. According to the economists behind the study, fast food employment in California dropped by 3.2 percent, while jobs in the same sector grew slightly across the rest of the U.S. 'Our median estimate translates into a loss of 18,000 jobs in California's fast–food sector relative to the counterfactual,' wrote researchers Jeffrey Clemens, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer. Before the law took effect, California's fast food industry was tracking the same employment trend as the rest of the country, the study found. But after AB 1228 was passed, the sector began to shrink. 'Following AB 1228's enactment, employment in the fast food sector in California fell substantially,' the paper states, citing declines 'even as employment in other sectors of the California economy tracked national trends'. Critics say the figures confirm what many feared: that a massive one–size–fits–all pay hike would push jobs out of reach for the workers it was meant to help. 'When it comes to central planning, history keeps the receipts: Wage controls never work,' wrote Heritage Foundation economist Rachel Greszler in a column reacting to the findings. 'That's because policymakers can set wage laws, but they can't outlaw the consequences.' She warned the law should serve as a wake–up call for other cities – especially Los Angeles, which recently voted to raise wages for hotel and airport workers to $30 an hour by 2028. 'The consequences of that wage hike on the fast–food industry should be a warning sign,' she said. The Wall Street Journal editorial board echoed that message, slamming politicians for 'magical thinking' around wage hikes. 'The Democratic Party's socialist nominee for New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has called for increasing the city's minimum wage to $30. Andrew Cuomo, his supposedly more moderate competitor, wants a $20 minimum,' the board wrote. 'These guys will never learn because they don't want to see the world as it really is.' But Governor Gavin Newsom's office has pushed back hard – questioning the integrity of the NBER paper and insisting California's wage law is working as intended. Tara Gallegos, Newsom's deputy director of communications, dismissed the study as politically motivated, telling Fox News Digital that it was 'linked to the Hoover Institution,' which she claimed had previously published 'false or misleading information' about the state's wage policies. She pointed to an October 2024 report in the San Francisco Chronicle, which said the early effects of AB 1228, 'defy a lot of the doom–and–gloom predictions' made when the bill was signed. Gallegos also cited a February 2025 study by a UC Berkeley professor, which looked at fast food employment trends through December and found 'no negative effects.' 'Workers covered by the policy saw wage increases of 8 to 9 percent, with no negative wage or employment effects on non–covered workers,' she said. 'No negative effects on fast–food employment.' She added: 'The number of fast–food establishments grew faster in California than in the rest of the U.S.' As for prices, the Berkeley study claimed menu costs rose by only 1.5 percent - about six cents on a $4 hamburger. The NBER paper also looked at whether the law had a knock-on effect in full-service restaurants, which weren't subject to the $20 mandate but compete for the same workers. The authors found smaller but still negative employment effects - a median drop of 2.12 percent. And while critics were quick to blame the law for economic pain, the researchers warned against cherry-picking isolated data.
