Not surprisingly, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has been held in contempt of court. He still kept defending a highly controversial immigration law after it was restrained by District Court Judge Kathleen Williams. Uthmeier assumed his new role in February 2023 after being appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis. He succeeded Ashley Moody, who had been appointed to replace Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate. The fierce legal battle reveals stark divisions and discomfort with Governor Ron DeSantis’ immigration agenda in the Sunshine State. Uthmeier’s continued prominence as a DeSantis loyalist and enthusiastic judge advocate for Donald Trump’s illegal immigration blitzkrieg.
The contempt ruling stems from Uthmeier’s decision to flout a Temporary Restraining Order granted by Judge Williams. This order barred state law enforcement agencies from arresting individuals under the now-blocked immigration law. Even though he had been told about the order, Uthmeier instructed police to continue making arrests in any case. He didn’t just blow off Judge Williams’ ruling—he bragged about it, saying in interviews that he wasn’t going to “rubber stamp” her order.
In an increasingly hostile legal climate, even in the context of that climate, Uthmeier’s actions have attracted withering scorn. Judge Williams expressed her disapproval, emphasizing that respect for the integrity of court orders is paramount. She underscored that litigants cannot make up their own definitions to words to suit their own needs. This is potently the case when simply relaying a court’s straightforward and unequivocal command. Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.
Uthmeier’s strident position is indicative of his overall ideological bent towards enforcing immigration laws to the letter in a way that would make DeSantis and Trump proud. Responding to the judge’s decision, he tweeted defiantly. As he ultimately put it in a statement, “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand unapologetically behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
Uthmeier’s appointment by DeSantis was the spark that lit this particular fire. We know that Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement the foremost priority of his administration. Uthmeier was chosen to replace Ashley Moody when she became attorney general. Moody had been appointed by DeSantis to replace Marco Rubio’s seat after Rubio went on to be Secretary of State under President Trump. This series of apolitical appointments illuminates the continuities political patronage behind the troubling political currents in Florida leadership.
Judge Williams’ restraining order explicitly barred any enforcement of the law Uthmeier had selected to enforce by state law enforcement officers. Her statement on the decision focused on Uthmeier doing as she told him. Most importantly, he must communicate his move to enact the injunction clearly and effectively to law enforcement agencies. She found that he had been “indifferent to Uthmeier’s criticism and contempt toward the judiciary and the court’s order.”
Uthmeier’s reactions to the court’s decision have been remarkably recalcitrant. He promised to notify state and local law enforcement agencies. He again reminded us that no judicial order bars the enforcement of Florida’s immigration laws. His audacious challenge raises some critical questions. It upsets the balance of power between state executives and the courts, particularly on controversial public policy matters.
Here’s the kicker—Judge Williams opened her order with a quote from Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.” This further emphasizes the importance of language and interpretation to the legal process. She stated, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,” underscoring the necessity for clarity and adherence to legal definitions.
Moving beyond Uthmeier, this contempt ruling has major nationwide implications. It provides important clues as to how Florida may begin to enforce its strict immigration enforcement measures in the months ahead. This decades-long conflict dramatically illustrates how difficult it is for state actors to thread the needle of judicial limitations while pushing their own partisan, politically driven priorities.