Supreme Court won't let Florida enforce new immigration law for now
The measure, known as SB 4-C, was approved by Florida's GOP-led legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year as part of what state Republican lawmakers said was an effort to protect the state from illegal immigration. But a pair of migrants and two nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the law, and its enforcement has been blocked since April.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sought the Supreme Court's intervention last month and asked the high court to allow enforcement of the law. But in denying his bid for emergency relief, the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams will remain in place while the legal battle moves forward. There were no noted dissents by the justices.
Florida's immigration law makes it a misdemeanor for people who are in the country illegally to enter the state. The measure was passed alongside federal efforts by President Trump to implement his sweeping immigration agenda, a centerpiece of which is the president's promise of mass deportations.
Williams ruled earlier this year that the law is likely unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court in Atlanta declined to pause that decision.
Separate from the legality of Florida's immigration law, the court battle led Williams to find Uthmeier in civil contempt after he sent letters to law enforcement agencies in the state about her decision.
The judge's first move was to grant a temporary restraining order that barred enforcement of the state's law. As part of her decision, Williams ordered Uthmeier to notify all law enforcement agencies in the state of the injunction. The attorney general circulated a letter to those agencies in April telling them that officers and agents should comply with Williams' directive.
But Uthmeier sent a follow-up letter five days later telling them that "there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from" enforcing the law, and that "no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce" the state's measure.
In a decision finding Uthmeier in civil contempt of her April order to provide notice to all law enforcement officers tasked with enforcing the state's immigration law, Williams said that "when instructed to inform law enforcement that they are proscribed from enforcing an enjoined law, he may not tell them otherwise."
"Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court's clear and unambiguous order," she wrote. "Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning."
Williams ordered Uthmeier to file biweekly reports on whether any arrests, detentions or other law enforcement actions occurred under Florida's law.
Sneak peek: Who Killed Aileen Seiden in Room 15?
Social media content creator shows his hustle
Everything we know so far about the deadly Texas floods
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. MORE: How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." MORE: Abbott threatens to oust Democrats who fled Texas over redistricting Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June. "I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Police investigating after neo-Nazis spark scuffle in Concord, N.H.
'No arrests were made at that time,' the department said in a statement on Sunday, 'however this is an active investigation and the department expects to release more information soon.' In a follow-up statement on Monday, the department said officers had received several video recordings and were working to identify those who may have been involved. Advertisement A lieutenant told New Hampshire Public Radio that police were investigating Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up The marchers appeared to be affiliated with the white supremacist ' A 'Rage Against the Regime' protest against the Trump administration was Video published by Advertisement A spokesperson for U-Haul told The Boston Globe on Monday that the company had received video and photos 'almost immediately' after the incident showing the equipment being misused. 'It is extremely dangerous, illegal and a breach of our rental agreement to transport people in the cargo area of our equipment,' spokesperson Jeff Lockridge said in an email. 'The customer on this rental contract has been identified and can no longer rent from us.' Lockridge did not identify the customer, and he said U-Haul teams work closely with law enforcement 'and are available to assist with any investigative needs they have.' The supermarket near where the scuffle was documented is just down the street from a cafe where a different white nationalist group The incident from 2023 is the subject of an ongoing civil rights prosecution by the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and Governor Kelly A. Ayotte said the DOJ's civil rights unit is ' 'There is no place for hate groups or their repugnant and disgusting ideology in New Hampshire,' she said. The incident sparked denunciations from Republicans and Democrats alike in New Hampshire. 'This was an act of intimidation rooted in a violent ideology responsible for genocide, war, and crimes against humanity,' said State Representative Alexis Simpson of Exeter, the Democratic minority leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. New Hampshire GOP Vice Chair Hollie Noveletsky said the neo-Nazi group's worldview is ' Advertisement 'The Republican Party is unequivocal in condemning this fringe organization as they promote a completely anti-American ideology,' Noveletsky said. At the same time, Republican State Representative Joseph H. Alexander Jr. of Goffstown wrote 'This is communities free speech,' he said, 'and I will support it.' Any witnesses with video of the incident is asked to call the Concord Police Department at 603-225-8600. Those who wish to report information anonymously can call the regional crimeline at 603-226-3100, submit information Steven Porter can be reached at
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Are legislative districts in US states drawn fairly? Poll shows partisan divide
Americans are divided over the fairness of legislative districts, with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to say electoral maps are drawn unfairly, according to the latest YouGov poll. At the same time, most Americans agree that redistricting efforts should be conducted by a nonpartisan body, as opposed to one political party. The survey, conducted on Aug. 4, comes as several states have moved to reform their legislative districts — areas that determine congressional representation in the House of Representatives — ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In Texas, for example, the Republican-controlled legislature plans to vote on a newly proposed district map, which would add five new GOP districts. A group of Democratic lawmakers fled the state in an attempt to block the vote. In response, other states, like California, have proposed the possibility of redrawing their own legislative maps as a retaliatory measure, though many blue states face limitations since their redistricting processes are overseen by independent commissions. Here is a breakdown of the poll results. In the survey — which sampled 18,217 U.S. adults — respondents were asked: 'Do you think legislative districts are drawn fairly or unfairly in your state?' Thirty-four percent said they believe their districts are drawn very fairly (9%) or somewhat fairly (25%). A similar share, 35%, said they think their own legislative districts are designed somewhat unfairly (19%) or very unfairly (16%). An additional 31% said they were not sure. On this question, there was a noticeable partisan divide. Forty percent of Democrats said their district was designed in a biased fashion, while 36% of independents and 28% of Republicans said the same. Several studies in recent years have concluded that legislative district maps are often unfairly drawn. For example, a 2024 study from the University of Chicago found that gerrymandering, the process of manipulating electoral boundaries to favor one party, 'occurs in many states and municipalities, leading to less responsive legislatures.' A similar study from the University of Utah concluded that 'Americans are categorized and grouped differently during congressional redistricting depending on who is drawing the lines.' Some of the most gerrymandered states include: Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to Newsweek, which compiled a report based on data from the World Population Review. In the poll — which has a margin of error of 1 percentage point — respondents were also asked whether they support requiring redistricting efforts to be handled by a 'nonpartisan redistricting commission.' A majority of respondents, 59%, said they strongly (38%) or somewhat support (21%) this. Meanwhile, just 11% said they somewhat (7%) or strongly oppose (4%) this measure. Thirty percent said they were not sure. On this question, there was a consensus across the political spectrum. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats, 56% of independents and 55% of Republicans said they're on board with restricting being conducted by nonpartisan commissions. Most state legislatures are responsible for redistricting, but 15 states have authorized commissions for the purpose of drawing legislative districts in an effort to reduce gerrymandering, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. These states include: California, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan. Five other states, including New York, have advisory commissions that assist legislatures in the redistricting process. Redistricting is typically done every 10 years, following the decennial U.S. census, but some states conduct this process more often.
