logo
US supreme court blocks Florida from enforcing anti-immigration law

US supreme court blocks Florida from enforcing anti-immigration law

Yahoo12-07-2025
The US supreme court maintained on Wednesday a judicial block on a Republican-crafted Florida law that makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants in the United States to enter the state.
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.
Related: Undocumented builders face unchecked exploitation amid Trump raids: 'It's more work, less pay'
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.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Delta Air assures US lawmakers it will not personalize fares using AI
Delta Air assures US lawmakers it will not personalize fares using AI

CNBC

time6 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Delta Air assures US lawmakers it will not personalize fares using AI

Delta Air Lines said on Friday it will not use artificial intelligence to set personalized ticket prices for passengers after facing sharp criticism from U.S. lawmakers and broad public concern. Last week, Democratic Senators Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal said they believed the Atlanta-based airline would use AI to set individual prices, which would "likely mean fare price increases up to each individual consumer's personal 'pain point.'" Delta said it has not used AI to set personalized prices but previously said it plans to deploy AI-based revenue management technology across 20% of its domestic network by the end of 2025 in partnership with Fetcherr, an AI pricing company. "There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data," Delta told the senators in a letter on Friday, seen by Reuters. "Our ticket pricing never takes into account personal data." Senators praised Delta's commitment not to use AI for personal pricing but expressed many questions and want more details about what data Delta is collecting to set prices. "Delta is telling their investors one thing, and then turning around and telling the public another," Gallego said. "If Delta is in fact using aggregated instead of individualized data, that is welcome news." Delta declined comment on Gallego's statement. The senators cited a comment in December by Delta President Glen Hauenstein that the carrier's AI price-setting technology is capable of setting fares based on a prediction of "the amount people are willing to pay for the premium products related to the base fares." Last week, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said using AI to set ticket prices could hurt consumer trust. "This is not about bait and switch. This is not about tricking," Isom said on an earnings call, adding "talk about using AI in that way, I don't think it's appropriate. And certainly from American, it's not something we will do." Democratic lawmakers Greg Casar and Rashida Tlaib last week introduced legislation to bar companies from using AI to set prices or wages based on Americans' personal data and would specifically ban airlines raising individual prices after seeing a search for a family obituary. They cited a Federal Trade Commission staff report in January that found "retailers frequently use people's personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services -- from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage." The FTC cited a hypothetical example of a consumer profiled as a new parent who could intentionally be shown higher-priced baby thermometers and collect behavioral details to forecast a customer's state of mind. Delta said airlines have used dynamic pricing for more than three decades, in which pricing fluctuates based on a variety of factors like overall customer demand, fuel prices and competition, but not a specific consumer's personal information. "Given the tens of millions of fares and hundreds of thousands of routes for sale at any given time, the use of new technology like AI promises to streamline the process by which we analyze existing data and the speed and scale at which we can respond to changing market dynamics," Delta's letter said.

Department of Veterans Affairs looks to end certain abortion services for veterans
Department of Veterans Affairs looks to end certain abortion services for veterans

CNN

time28 minutes ago

  • CNN

Department of Veterans Affairs looks to end certain abortion services for veterans

The US Department of Veterans Affairs is proposing to end certain abortion services to veterans, rolling back a Biden-era move to expand abortion rights. In a proposed rule filed Friday, the department said that it is seeking to revoke access to abortions and abortion counseling for veterans and the beneficiaries of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 'We take this action to ensure that VA provides only needed medical services to our nation's heroes and their families,' the department said in the filing. Under the Biden administration's rule, the department currently provides access to abortions when a pregnant veteran's life or health is at risk if their pregnancy were carried to term, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest — regardless of state laws. The proposed rule would allow abortions in cases where 'a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,' which, according to the filing, had been permitted even before the 2022 expansion. The Biden-era rule was part of the administration's efforts to expand abortion access after Republican-led states pushed ahead with restrictions in the wake of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the federal right to an abortion. The VA argued at the time that it was necessary to give veterans access to abortions, saying, 'As abortion bans come into force across the country, veterans in many States are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed.' But on Friday, President Donald Trump's VA slammed the Biden administration's rule, calling it federal overreach. 'The stated reason for (the expansion) was a reaction to a Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization … that itself was intended to prevent federal overreach and return to States control over the provision of abortion services,' the filing states. 'Yet, the last administration used Dobbs to do the exact opposite of preventing overreach, creating a purported Federal entitlement to abortion for veterans where none had existed before and without regard to State law.' Twenty states have banned or limited access to abortion. States where abortion is limited report higher rates of maternal and infant mortality, as well as greater economic insecurity. The proposed rule will now be open for public comment for 30 days starting Monday. In his first term, Trump made good on campaign promises and appointed Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Since that ruling, Trump has been keen to leave regulations over the issue to state governments. The Trump administration has overall been quiet on the issue of abortion in his second term. However, in June, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services moved to rescind a 2022 federal guidance to health care providers specifying that people should be able to access an abortion in the event of a medical emergency, even if state laws restrict such procedures. CNN's Veronica Stracqualursi and Jen Christensen contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store