Judge considers whether Florida's attorney general should be held in contempt over immigration law
MIAMI — A federal judge heard arguments Thursday on whether Florida's attorney general should be held in contempt or sanctioned for not following her order prohibiting the enforcement of a new state law making it a misdemeanor for people in the U.S. illegally to enter Florida.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams didn't make an immediate decision following an almost two-hour court hearing. Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't attend the court session in Miami.
The federal judge had specified in a ruling last month that her temporary restraining order against enforcing the Florida law applied to all of the state's local law enforcement agencies. She later noted that there was a substantial likelihood that the Florida law would be found unconstitutional.
But Uthmeier sent out an April 23 letter to Florida's law enforcement agencies saying that he couldn't prevent law enforcement officers from enforcing the law 'where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so.'
'As set forth in the brief my office filed today, it is my view that no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws,' he said in the letter.
Dozens of people, including a U.S. citizen, have been arrested under the law. Uthmeier has appealed the judge's order to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Uthmeier, a former chief of staff to Ron DeSantis, was appointed to the position by the Republican governor after then-state Attorney General Ashley Moody was picked to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Marco Rubio, who was nominated to be President Donald Trump's secretary of state.
In court papers, Uthmeier said he was merely notifying local law enforcement agencies in the letter that he had filed a court brief that held a legal view disagreeing with the judge's order. He had obeyed the judge's order by notifying local law enforcement agencies in an April 18 letter that they couldn't enforce the law while the court case proceeded, according to Uthmeier's court filings.
'There is no basis for contempt or sanctions,' Uthmeier said. 'Interpreting an order to prohibit a state attorney general from disagreeing with a federal order — while following it — would also be an extraordinary, first-of-its-kind assertion of federal judicial power, implicating grave constitutional concerns.'
Attorneys for immigrants' rights groups that challenged the Florida law said it was unacceptable that the attorney general's letter 'encouraged arrests that he fully understood were specifically prohibited.'
Even if Uthmeier's arguments are taken at face value, that he was merely stating his legal position, he has done nothing to clear up the confusion despite given ample opportunities, said lawyers for the immigrants' rights groups. They said the options the judge could consider include financial sanctions and referring Uthmeier's conduct to the Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings or to federal authorities for prosecution.
'Considered objectively and in the context of the earlier letter, the Attorney General's second letter plainly undermined the notice he was directed to provide, and invited arrests which he knew would be violations of this court's order," the immigrants rights' lawyers said in court papers. "That is quintessential contempt of court.'
Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump asks US Supreme Court to allow mass federal layoffs
Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt a judicial order blocking mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The Justice Department's request came after San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs , known as " reductions in force ," in a May 22 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profit groups and local governments that challenged the administration. The case involves the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others. Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in the filing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dermatologista recomenda: simples truque elimina o fungo facilmente Acabe com o Fungo Undo "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. The Supreme Court requested a response by the plaintiffs in the case to the administration's filing by June 9. Live Events Trump directed federal agencies in February to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" as part of his administration's restructuring plans. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote. Illston on May 9 had initially blocked about 20 agencies from making mass layoffs for two weeks and ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs. She continued most of that relief in her May 22 ruling. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the Trump administration 's request to halt the judge's ruling. The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations." Trump's administration has sought relief from the Supreme Court in a growing number of cases following rulings by lower courts impeding various policies since he returned to office in January.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Trump Presses Reluctant GOP Senators to Embrace House's Tax Bill
President Donald Trump worked the phones Monday and took to social media to try to sway Republican holdouts on his multi-trillion dollar tax bill, encountering conflicting demands from GOP senators even as he urged them to move swiftly. The legislation, which last month passed the House by one vote, faces opposition from both moderates and ultra-conservatives in the Senate, where Trump can afford to lose no more than three votes. 'With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The president gave lawmakers at odds with one another the feeling that he was on their side. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who wants more deficit reduction and also opposes clean energy cuts in the House bill, said he expected Senate leaders to present Trump with a draft of tax and Medicaid revisions by this weekend. But he acknowledged that the process could take much longer. Republicans, Tillis said, have to put ideas from senators 'in the funnel and get a work product, I'd say over the next ten days, ten-to-fifteen days.' That tight timeframe would be needed to get the legislation to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline but would be hard to meet. Earlier: Trump Tax Bill Narrowly Passes House, Overcoming Infighting If the Senate passes a revised bill, the House must then take it up again. And any changes risk undoing the fragile coalition that narrowly supported the measure in that chamber. Senate Republican leaders intend to make permanent many of the temporary tax cuts in the House bill, a move that would increase the bill's more than $2.5 trillion deficit impact. Yet doing so risks alienating fiscal hawks already at war with party moderates over the bill's safety-net cuts. The biggest of those is the House bill's cuts to Medicaid, which are projected to end health care coverage for about 7.7 million people by changing eligibility requirements. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said in a mid-afternoon social media post that he 'just had a great talk' with the president on the legislation and they agreed no Medicaid benefits would be cut. Hawley later said he supports the House bill's work requirements, as well as efforts to go after fraud, but opposes that measure's changes to the Medicaid provider tax and cost sharing. The House legislation seeks to limit a practice whereby states tax hospitals and other Medicaid providers in order to bolster their federal reimbursement levels, a move critics call an accounting gimmick. It also imposes new copays on Medicaid beneficiaries. The senator added that the president made clear to him he didn't support making even deeper cuts to Medicaid than in the House bill that some Senate Republicans are demanding. Trump also spoke with Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a GOP holdout who has demanded $5.5 trillion to $6.5 trillion in cuts over the next decade, and pressed him to support the bill, he told reporters. He said Trump was receptive to his ideas. Johnson said he'd sit down with Trump's economic team to review the numbers and would be open to something similar to the House bill with assurances of legislation later that makes deeper cuts. 'I want to work with the president,' Johnson said. Trump also met Monday with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whose said they discussed many subjects including 'a lot about the big beautiful bill.' With assistance from Chris Cioffi. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
US demands final trade offers by Wednesday as tariff deadline nears
With just five weeks until a self-imposed deadline and global markets watching closely, the Trump administration is accelerating trade negotiations with multiple countries, urging them to submit their "best offers" by to a draft letter seen by Reuters, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is pressing countries to outline top-line proposals in key areas such as tariff cuts, quota allocations for US industrial and agricultural goods, and removal of non-tariff trade move comes as the administration attempts to wrap up complex negotiations that began on April 9, when President Donald Trump paused his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs for 90 days after a market backlash. That temporary pause ends on July 8. The letter outlines an aggressive timeline, reflecting a growing sense of urgency inside the White House. "Productive negotiations with many key trading partners continue at a rapid pace. It is in all parties' interest to take stock of progress and assess any next steps," a USTR official told administration officials, including White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, have repeatedly signalled that multiple agreements are "nearing completion," only one limited deal has emerged so far — with Britain. That agreement, however, is widely viewed as a loose framework for ongoing talks, rather than a final draft letter reportedly calls for detailed responses on digital trade, economic security, and country-specific commitments. Once proposals are submitted, the US plans to evaluate them "within days" and provide what the letter refers to as "a possible landing zone," potentially including reciprocal tariff the draft doesn't specify recipient nations, it's understood to target countries currently in active negotiations, including the European Union, Japan, Vietnam, and ambitious -- and often frenetic -- tariff policy represents a major part of his "America First" economic agenda as he seeks to reshape US trade relationships, reduce trade deficits and protect American industries. Republican lawmakers are also banking on tariffs to add to federal revenue and offset the cost of the tax-cut legislation now working its way through twists and turns in Trump's tariff policies have taken investors on a rollercoaster ride. In May, US stocks held their biggest rally of any month since November 2023, but that was after global indexes had cratered under the barrage of Trump's tariff announcements throughout February, March and early inputs from ReutersTune InMust Watch
