Latest news with #EleventhCircuit
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Florida attorney general loses appeal to overturn order blocking immigration law
A judicial appeals panel has upheld a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a new state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida — notching another victory for immigration advocates in a case that has drawn Florida's attorney general into conflict with a Miami federal judge. The Friday afternoon ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta keeps in place a lower court order temporarily preventing police and prosecutors from making arrests and pursuing charges under Florida's SB-4, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February. The law makes it a crime for immigrants to enter the state of Florida if they have been deported or denied entry into the country, or eluded immigration officers when coming into the United States. 'This is a difficult case, and this order does not finally resolve the issues,' states the order, issued by judges Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Embry Kidd. The unsuccessful appeal at the heart of Friday's ruling was brought by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who sought to stay the temporary injunction. Uthmeier has argued that District Court Judge Kathleen Williams overstepped in April when, responding to a lawsuit brought by several undocumented Florida residents who said the law was unconstitutional, she blocked the enforcement of the law. Williams initially issued a restraining order preventing the enforcement of SB-4, and then ordered a broader temporary injunction after learning that state police had continued to make arrests — including an American citizen. Uthmeier's attorneys argued that while Williams' order had bound them from enforcing the law, it didn't apply to 'independent' law enforcement agencies like the Florida Highway Patrol. The attorney general was so adamant in his position that, days later, he wrote a letter to law enforcement agencies telling them he didn't think Williams' order was legitimate — leading the judge to initiate contempt proceedings. In their Friday ruling, the judges waded into the legal skirmish, writing that Uthmeier 'may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.' A spokesman for Uthmeier's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The American Civil Liberties Union, whose attorneys have worked on the case, celebrated the ruling as a significant victory, not just in Florida but around the country as red states move to implement strict immigration laws. 'This ruling is not just a legal victory — it's a resounding rejection of cruelty masquerading as policy,' said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. The case, brought by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, will continue on before Judge Williams, who has yet to issue her ruling on whether Uthmeier will be held in contempt of court.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Florida AG Uthmeier again defends his stance in state immigration case
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in Tampa on June 2, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says it's pretty basic why he won't tell local law enforcement officers in Florida to stand down from enforcing a new state law on immigration enforcement, as a federal judge ordered him to do earlier this year. He says it's because he's not their boss. 'These guys — they don't work for me,' Uthmeier said on Monday in Tampa, referring to two Florida sheriffs standing next to him: Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey and Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister. 'They're independently elected county officers and they do a great job, but at the end of the day, they are their own officers. I'm not going to direct them when I don't have the authority and I don't believe the judge has the authority to do so.' Uthmeier spoke just days after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams heard legal arguments about whether she should hold him in contempt of court regarding the implementation of a new state law on immigration (SB 4-C), which makes it a misdemeanor for people in the U.S. illegally to enter Florida. Following a legal challenge by attorneys representing immigrant rights organizations, Williams blocked enforcement of the law on April 4. The issue that remains tethered to Uthmeier is a letter he sent to state law enforcement agencies, sheriffs, and police chiefs on April 23, when he wrote that he couldn't stop them from making arrests under the new law, and that, to him, 'no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws.' Judge Williams has said that Uthmeier not above the law and must abide by the court's orders. Uthmeier said on Monday that the issue goes to the separations of powers and legal jurisdictions. 'Nobody respects the rule of law more than me,' he said in response to an inquiry by a Phoenix reporter. 'But on your first day in law school you learn about the jurisdiction that judges have. And the orders of judges apply to parties before the judge in the case. The case in question in the Southern District. There have been prosecutors that have been sued in that case but no law enforcement agencies. So, when that judge asked me to direct law enforcement to stand down on enforcing the law, I'm not going to do that, because I do not have the authority to do that.' Uthmeier's office as well as the statewide prosecutor and state's attorneys have appealed Williams injunction barring enforcement of the law to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 'Again, I'm abiding by the court's order, but law enforcement has a job to do, and as long as they're not a party in the case and there's no injunction that is lawfully binding them, then I'm not going to stand in the way,' he said. Uthmeier, a former chief of staff to Gov. Ron DeSantis, was appointed by the governor to succeed Ashley Moody and become Florida's attorney general in February. He has already announced that he will run for a full term next year. DeSantis is backing Uthmeier's stance in this case, saying last month in Tampa that the federal judge in this case has gone beyond her authority in calling on Florida law enforcement agencies to stop making immigration arrests. 'She's trying to exercise authority that she does not possess. Fine,' DeSantis said at the time. 'There's parties to the case and she's rendered a decision even though it's a flawed decision that will be appealed. … You can't go out and then say some sheriff in the Panhandle is somehow subject to your order — they were not involved in the litigation at all.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Associated Press
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
NAS PENSACOLA TERRORISM VICTIMS WILL ARGUE THE APPEAL OF THEIR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ON JUNE 3, 2025
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 29, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden, LLC wish to announce that on the morning of June 3, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear oral argument on the appeal of the lawsuit victims and their families filed against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after a Royal Saudi Air Force ('RSAF') officer went on a shooting rampage at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida on December 6, 2019. The argument will take place in the Gerald B. Tjoflat Courtroom (13th Floor) of the United States Courthouse located at 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The date of the shooting coincided two years to the day of President Trump's announcement on December 6, 2017, declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and marked the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001 that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had been involved in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The shooter, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, a Second Lieutenant in the RSAF, murdered three U.S. Servicemembers and severely injured four U.S. Navy servicemembers; a Navy civil servant; seven Escambia County Sherrif's deputies; and a member of the Department of Defense Police Force. Al-Shamrani was at NAS Pensacola for flight training under a Security Cooperation Education & Training Program administered under U.S. foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia. In the wake of the shootings, the U.S. Department of Justice declared the incident to be an act of international terrorism. All of the victims, and in the cases of those killed, their families, filed a civil complaint against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on February 22, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola, pleading 19 causes of action, all of which seek to hold the Kingdom civilly liable for the acts of its military officer. In extended motions practice, the Kingdom sought to dismiss the suit on grounds of immunity under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ('FSIA'). On March 30, 2024, the U.S. District Court granted the Kingdom's motion, and the victims and their families timely filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to raising important questions about a foreign sovereign's civil liability for an act of international terrorism in U.S. soil, the appeal raises a number of questions of first impression regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunicites Act – including the meaning of certain provisions of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016, which neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has previously interpreted. The case is captioned Benjamin Watson, Jr., et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, No. 24-11310 (11th Cir.). View original content: SOURCE Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden, LLC
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. judge denies Florida's request to dismiss suit over 2021 social media law
The lengthy suit over the 2021 state law punishing social media companies for deplatforming conservatives will continue, a U.S. judge ruled on May 22, 2025. (Photo by) A federal judge has denied Florida's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a 2021 law punishing social media platforms for alleged censorship of conservatives. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida issued an order Thursday denying the state's motions to toss the suit brought by two trade associations representing social media giants and to compel those companies to turn over information about their internal policies. The order came weeks after Hinkle held a hearing in Tallahassee in which he said he's still perplexed about what the Legislature meant to accomplish by trying to limit social media content moderation. Hinkle wrote that neither the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court had questioned the plaintiffs' standing to sue Florida. NetChoice and co-plaintiff Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) argue that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The two groups represent a number of the biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Apple, and Pinterest. 'Once again, a judge has confirmed the importance of the First Amendment, rejecting Florida's attempts to evade review of its unconstitutional statute,' wrote Stephanie Joyce, director of CCIA's Litigation Center, in a press release Thursday. 'This law tries to force websites to speak as the state commands, which strikes at the heart of free discourse and democracy. We now move forward with demonstrating why this law must be struck down.' Hinkle is revisiting the case after the country's highest court punted it back to the Eleventh Circuit because the justices found that the appellate court had not conducted a proper analysis of the groups' First Amendment challenges, which in turn sent the case back to Hinkle. The law the Legislature passed following then-former President Donald Trump's banishment from social media platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol prohibits deplatforming any candidate for statewide political office. Additionally, SB 7072 granted the Florida Election Commission authority to fine platforms with gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly users $250,000 per day for banning statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for candidates for other offices. In his order Thursday, Hinkle wrote that provisions in the law, such as one banning platforms from placing candidates' posts or posts about them in a less prominent position, would give candidates a statutory right to flood users' feeds. 'The defendants have not attempted to explain what these provisions really mean or how they would be applied. Nor have the defendants offered any theory under which a state can preclude this kind of curating without violating the First Amendment,' Hinkle wrote. Still, Hinkle, who originally issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, leaned toward a belief that provisions of the law are unconstitutional as applied to some of the companies rather than considering the law unconstitutional on its face. He used that reasoning to deny the state's motion to force the plaintiffs to turn over more information about specific companies. 'The plaintiffs' facial challenge to SB 7072, and perhaps even to its various provisions viewed in isolation, is likely to fail — and the disputed discovery, if allowed, would almost surely make no difference,' Hinkle wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida Attorney General calls federal judge's ruling on Naples Pride 'radical and wrong'
A day after a federal judge ruled in favor of Naples Pride, granting a preliminary injunction and allowing an outdoors drag performance, Florida's top attorney called the decision "both radical and wrong." "I stand by our law that protects kids from drag shows and other sexually explicit adult performances," Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier wrote May 13 on X. "The decisions out of Fort Myers and the Eleventh Circuit panel are both radical and wrong. My office will fight aggressively and swiftly to get these bad decisions overturned." Uthmeier later added that "trans activists don't have the First Amendment right to expose kids to their weird sexual fetishes." Jae Williams, spokesperson for Uthmeier's office, during a May 14 phone call said that Uthmeier's post on X is his statement. When asked if Uthmeier or one of his staff members would comment on the record, Williams said Uthmeier's office did not have further comment. 'Clearly invalid': Federal judge rules Naples Pride's Pride Fest drag performance may happen outdoors On May 12, in a 49-page order, District Judge John Steele referred to the city's permitting restrictions as "clearly invalid" under the First Amendment. He had reserved ruling in a hearing May 2. Both sides of the issue rallied in downtown Fort Myers prior to the hearing. In his order, Steele granted the preliminary injunction in part, saying Naples Pride's drag performance is protected speech. The drag performance, which is part of Naples Pride's Pride Fest, is slated for June 7. The City of Naples, Mayor Teresa Heitmann, Naples Police Chief Ciro Dominguez, Naples City Council members and Naples Police are listed as co-defendants in the discrimination lawsuit, accused of violating the First Amendment. In his order, Steele wrote that Naples Pride forbids performers from incorporating nudity or vulgar, sexual, or obscene content into their performances, among other restrictions that would allow the presence of minors. Former President Bill Clinton, who served in the White House for two terms between 1993 and 2001, nominated Steele for the federal court post on June 6, 2000. Naples Pride filed its federal lawsuit after city officials denied their permit for an outdoor drag performance and instead would only allow an indoor performance restricted to people of age. The order notes that Pride Fest's 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2022 editions, including the drag performance, happened outdoors on Cambier Park's main stage. According to the order, a series of complaints in 2022 led to an investigation into the performances, causing the drag performance to move indoors. The initially approved permit, which had received a 5-2 vote, was modified to require that the drag-show performance be held indoors and attendance restricted to adults only. Joshua Goldman, the attorney representing Naples Pride, on May 2 said in court before Steele that drag performances are "not adult entertainment." The preliminary injunction allowing the outdoor show expires June 8. Tomas Rodriguez is a Breaking/Live News Reporter for the Naples Daily News and The News-Press. You can reach Tomas at TRodriguez@ or 772-333-5501. Connect with him on Threads @tomasfrobeltran, Instagram @tomasfrobeltran, Facebook @tomasrodrigueznews and Bluesky @tomasfrodriguez. This article originally appeared on Naples Daily News: Florida Attorney General attacks judge over Naples Pride ruling
