Florida’s government is standing by its defense of a law that penalizes as a misdemeanor the entry into the state by individuals without legal immigration status, despite a suspension issued by a federal judge and ongoing legal challenges in federal courts.
- What does Florida’s SB 4-C law entail?
- Why did the federal court suspend the law?
- What stance did the attorney general take after the suspension?
- What arguments do the plaintiffs present?
- What actions has the court taken following the arrests?
- What has been the response from federal authorities?
- Next steps in the legal process
The legislation, known as SB 4-C, was passed in February 2025 and faces a court order blocking its enforcement. Civil organizations, including the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the law encroaches on powers exclusively assigned to the federal government. The dispute has led to a series of legal filings and hearings that continue to unfold in the Southern District Court of Florida, according to court documents.
State Attorney General James Uthmeier requested on Wednesday, April 30, that the law be allowed to take effect while the suspension is appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta. Uthmeier stated that the law aims to bolster public safety and does not conflict with federal regulations, according to federal court records.
What does Florida’s SB 4-C law entail?
The SB 4-C law makes it a misdemeanor for a person without legal immigration status to enter or re-enter Florida, even if they reside legally in another state. The provision allows state and local authorities to arrest those evading federal immigration agencies, according to the legislative text.
The government of Florida, led by Governor Ron DeSantis, has defended the law, arguing that it represents the state’s sovereign authority to collaborate with federal immigration laws. Uthmeier noted in his court filing that the state legislation is compatible with federal statutes and does not interfere with the responsibilities of the federal government, as outlined in the court record.
Why did the federal court suspend the law?
Federal Judge Kathleen Williams issued a temporary restraining order on April 4 blocking the enforcement of SB 4-C. The judge concluded there was a substantial likelihood that the law would be deemed unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the federal government exclusive authority over immigration matters.
On April 18, Judge Williams extended the suspension after learning that, despite her ruling, officers from the Florida Highway Patrol had arrested over a dozen individuals under SB 4-C, including U.S. citizen Juan Carlos López Gómez.
What stance did the attorney general take after the suspension?
Initially, Uthmeier distributed a memo to Florida law enforcement agencies, requesting they refrain from enforcing the law while the court order was in effect, though he expressed disagreement with Judge Williams’ decision.
However, five days later, the attorney general sent a second memo stating that the judge had made a legal error and that her decision did not prevent state and local agencies from enforcing the law. This interpretation was rejected by the judge, who emphasized that her order applied to all state law enforcement agencies, even those not named in the lawsuit.
What arguments do the plaintiffs present?
The lawsuit filed by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, supported by the ACLU and other organizations, argues that SB 4-C criminalizes the mere presence of immigrants in the state. The plaintiffs claim this constitutes an overreach of federal authority over immigration and could lead to wrongful arrests and discrimination, according to an official ACLU statement released on April 30.
Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, stated that the legislation turns immigration enforcement into a tool for state-level criminal control, a function legally reserved for the federal government.
What actions has the court taken following the arrests?
Judge Williams scheduled a hearing for May 29 to assess whether Attorney General Uthmeier could be held in contempt for allegedly violating the court order.
The court will also review Uthmeier’s request to lift the injunction while the state appeals the decision to the 11th Circuit Court. The outcome of that hearing could determine whether enforcement of SB 4-C can resume while the litigation continues, according to court documents.
What has been the response from federal authorities?
As of May 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice has not issued public statements regarding the ongoing litigation, nor has it formally intervened in the case, according to a review of official statements and court reports.
Next steps in the legal process
The May 29 hearing will be pivotal in determining whether the state of Florida can continue defending the law’s enforcement while the appeal process moves forward. Both the plaintiffs and the attorney general have announced their intention to present additional arguments.
Image: Infobae
