For the third consecutive year, the U.S. Supreme Court has maintained a judicial block on Florida’s controversial immigration law, SB 4-C. This decision leaves a very important obstacle in place against enforcing the law. This decision follows three years of successful legal challenges. It underscores the contentious state versus federal authority over immigration issues that remains at the heart of this debate.
In February, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s SB 4-C into law. This legislation places very harsh criminal penalties on undocumented immigrants and creates a felony charge for some immigrants to enter the state. The law mandates that defendants be held in jail pretrial without bond eligibility. It further establishes required minimum penalties for anyone found guilty of violating its regulations. First time offenders are subject to a mandatory country minimum sentence of nine months imprisonment. People with felony records who are deported and come back to Florida would face up to five years in prison.
Yet the law pushed through by Florida’s Republican-led legislature has faced intense scrutiny and pushback by civil and voting rights activists. That’s why U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams granted a preliminary injunction back in April, preventing state officials from enforcing SB 4-C. In his ruling, Judge Williams found that the law was likely unconstitutional as it infringed on the AAP’s First Amendment rights. She found that it violates the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over immigration policy.
The law’s changes fail to provide any space for people in need of humanitarian protection, or those with applications for immigration relief pending. The vagueness of this provision has led many advocacy organizations to worry about the humanitarian effects that the law could have.
On the heels of Judge Williams’ injunction, Florida attorney general, James Uthmeier, went on the offensive. DeSantis filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to stay the order that pauses SB 4-C. The Supreme Court upheld the block, making Judge Williams’ ruling even more final. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld her decision. This continues a trend of judicial reluctance to uphold state-level immigration regulations that are preempted by federal authority.
In her ruling, Judge Williams found Uthmeier to be in civil contempt of court. She held him accountable for not directing his state law enforcement officers to cease enforcing the law, as she found was necessary. This case illustrates a new front in the conflicts between state actors and federal judicial power over enforcement of immigration law.
Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, emphasized the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision, stating, “This denial reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration.” Here’s that sentence, which summarizes the conventional legal wisdom against the imposition of anti-immigrant laws by the states.
Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, criticized SB 4-C, asserting that it “is not just unconstitutional – it’s cruel and dangerous.” This perception parallels complaints from many advocates who see the law as punitive and harmful to marginalized communities.
As this epic showdown plays out, it lays bare the twisting, turning, often opaque world of immigration policy in the United States today. Depending on the outcome, it could provide a guideline for the scope of state power when enacting immigration-related bills. This could set a precedent encouraging other states and localities to adopt similar laws.