Stay in your lane: Florida AG fires next volley against judge halting state immigration law
FIRST ON FOX: Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier fired back Wednesday at an Obama-appointed Miami federal judge who attempted to halt enforcement of a state immigration law.
Uthmeier told Fox News Digital he submitted a motion to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit to stay a motion to halt Florida's illegal immigration law.
"As the late Justice Scalia once said, 'If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of [Florida], we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state,'" Uthmeier said. "My office will fight this judge's order to the top if we must and continue being the Trump administration's best partner in the mission to remove every illegal alien and protect our state and nation's sovereignty."
Uthmeier had originally told Judge Kathleen Williams he could not tell his law enforcement officers not to enforce the state's new law making it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter Florida to avoid the feds.
FLA AG TO REBUFF JUDGE WHO ORDERED HALT TO STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: THE COURT HAS OVERSTEPPED
Williams ruled the law violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, while Uthmeier countered he couldn't order the Florida Highway Patrol to stop any enforcement because it wasn't party to the order.
"Florida cops don't need my permission to do their jobs. And the judge can't order law enforcement officers to stand down when they aren't even parties to the case," Uthmeier told Fox News Digital exclusively Wednesday.
"This is Law 101. She doesn't have jurisdiction. We hope the appellate court will fix the problems the lower court created and reaffirm that, as 'the least dangerous branch,' district court judges must stay in their constitutional lane."
FLORIDA AG LAUNCHES OFFICE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, LENDING LEGAL FIREPOWER TO DFEEND PARENTS' 'GOD-GIVEN RIGHT'
In his filing, Uthmeier argued Florida did "nothing more … [but] to aid the United States in curbing illegal immigration within the state's borders" and didn't take any actions that would violate the Constitution.
"SB 4-C (the law) criminalizes the entry into Florida of those who have illegally entered the United States. That law tracks federal law to a tee."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"Florida law defines an 'unauthorized alien' as 'a person who is unlawfully present in the United States according to the terms of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.'
"I do not believe an AG should be held in contempt for respecting the rule of law and appropriate separation of powers. The ACLU is dead set on obstructing President Donald Trump's efforts to detain and deport illegals, and we are going to fight back. We will vigorously defend our laws and advance President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump says supporters are 'more in love' with him than ever, as involvement in Iran roils MAGA world
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday downplayed any notion that his supporters are cooling on him amid uncertainty over whether he will order a U.S. strike on Iran, addressing a rift between some of his most vocal MAGA backers and national security conservatives. 'My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm more in love with them, more than they even were at election time where we had a total landslide,' Trump told reporters as a new flagpole was erected at the White House, with machinery whirring in the background. 'I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy, and I have people outside of the base that can't believe that this is happening, they're so happy,' he said. Trump huddled Tuesday in the Situation Room with his national security team, and on Wednesday , Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon was providing Trump with possible options on Iran but would not say whether the military was planning to assist with Israeli strikes. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Trump said Wednesday, in the exchange with reporters. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Trump's comments came as some longtime defenders of his America First mantra are calling him out for weighing a greater U.S. role in the conflict between Israel and Iran after a week of deadly strikes and counterstrikes. Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene , commentator Tucker Carlson and conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk are among those reminding their own devoted audiences of Trump's 2024 promises to resist overseas military involvement. Here's a look at the others who have chimed in: Shortly before Trump spoke, Steve Bannon , one of his 2016 campaign's top advisers, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement, saying that 'one of the core tenets is no forever wars' for Trump's base. But Bannon — a longtime Trump ally who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021 — went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump will have to make the case to the American people if he wants to get involved in Iran — and he hasn't done that yet. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host on Wednesday posted on social media a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot, and an AI-generated composite of Trump and former President George W. Bush, whom Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged for involving the United States in the so-called 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' ___ Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at .
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Last Time Supreme Court Considered Trans Rights, It Protected Them
The Supreme Court last decided a major case about transgender rights in June 2020, a win for the L.G.B.T.Q. community in a dispute over workplace discrimination against gay and transgender workers. In that case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a group of plaintiffs — among them, a funeral director, an advocate for at-risk children, and a skydiving instructor — argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guaranteed nationwide protection from workplace discrimination to gay and transgender people, even in states that offered no protection. In a vote of 6 to 3, the justices agreed. But that was a different court — and a different political moment. Although the court already had a conservative majority, the court's makeup shifted further rightward since then, after President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat left by the liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The politics around transgender issues have also shifted rightward. Soon after Mr. Trump began his second term in January, he issued an executive order that federal agencies should limit surgeries, hormone therapy and other gender transition care for children and teenagers under 19. Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the justices to uphold a Tennessee law banning some medical treatment for transgender youth. In the court's decision on Wednesday to uphold that law, the majority said that it would not determine whether the reasoning from the Bostock decision reached beyond employment discrimination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained a view that, unlike in the employment discrimination context, changing a minor's sex or gender would not alter how the state law applied to them. The majority reasoned that if a transgender boy sought testosterone to treat gender dysphoria, the Tennessee law would prohibit a health care provider from giving it to him. If the patient was a girl, the law would still prohibit the hormone treatment because the person would lack a qualifying diagnosis, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, arguing that the court's decision in Bostock would require a different result. She wrote that, as Bostock outlined in the employment discrimination case, 'it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.'
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
X sues New York over law requiring social media companies to report how they handle offensive posts
Elon Musk's social media platform, X, is suing New York over a state law that requires the company to report how it handles offensive content. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the law late last year, and it takes effect later this year. X claims the law infringes on free speech and on a 1996 federal law that, among other things, lets internet platforms moderate posts as they see fit. New York is improperly trying to "inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process" by requiring "politically charged disclosures," Bastrop, Texas-based X Corp. argues in the suit. "The state is impermissibly trying to generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the state dislikes," says the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan. New York Attorney General Letitia James' office said in a statement Wednesday that it was reviewing the complaint and will "stand ready to defend the constitutionality of our laws." What to know about the New York law in question The law requires social media companies to report twice a year on whether and how they define hate speech, racist or extremist content, disinformation and some other terms. The platforms also have to detail their content moderation practices and data on the number of posts they flagged, the actions they took, the extent to which the offending material was seen or shared, and more. Sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Grace Lee, both Democrats, have said the measure will make social media more transparent and companies more accountable. The law applies broadly to social media companies. But X is among those that have faced intense scrutiny in recent years, and in a 2024 letter to an X lobbyist, the sponsors said the company and Musk, in particular, have a "disturbing record" that "threatens the foundations of our democracy." The lawmakers wrote that before Musk became, for a time, a close adviser and cost-cutter in President Trump's administration. The two billionaires have since feuded and, perhaps, made up. Since taking over the former Twitter in 2022, Musk, in the name of free speech, has dismantled the company's Trust and Safety advisory group and stopped enforcing content moderation and hate speech rules that the site followed. He has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and incentivized engagement on the platform with payouts and content partnerships. Outside groups have since documented a rise in hate speech and harassment on the platform. X sued a research organization that studies online hate speech — that lawsuit was dismissed last March. The New York legislation took a page from a similar law that passed in California — and drew a similar lawsuit from X. Last fall, a panel of federal appellate judges blocked portions of the California law, at least temporarily, on free speech grounds. The state subsequently settled, agreeing not to enforce the content-moderation reporting requirements.
