Florida Attorney General to Attend Contempt Hearing on Immigration Policy
MIAMI — Florida’s Attorney General is under scrutiny this week as U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams considers whether he disobeyed a federal injunction by instructing state and local officers to continue enforcing a new state misdemeanor against unauthorized entry. The decision, and potential sanctions, hinge on the interpretation of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and broader questions of federalism, constitutional supremacy, and enforcement protocol.
Background and Legal Timeline
Enactment of the Florida Illegal Entry Law
In March, the Florida Legislature passed a statute making illegal entry and reentry into the state a misdemeanor punishable by fines and up to 60 days in jail. The law empowered local law enforcement to detain individuals suspected of entering the state without authorization.
Federal Injunction
On April 4, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a TRO preventing Florida agencies from enforcing the new misdemeanor law. Williams cited a substantial likelihood that the statute conflicts with federal immigration statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1325) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution).
Attorney General’s Correspondence
- April 18 Letter: The AG’s office notified law enforcement that the state law was subject to the TRO and enforcement should cease pending further judicial review.
- April 23 Letter: The AG reversed course, stating no binding order barred officers from enforcing the state misdemeanor. He cited his appeal to the 11th Circuit and argued that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies.”
Contempt Hearing and Potential Sanctions
Judge Williams is weighing a motion for contempt and sanctions. Possible measures include:
- Financial penalties against the Attorney General’s office for each day of continued enforcement.
- Referral to the Florida Bar for professional discipline.
- A referral to federal authorities for prosecution of contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401.
“Encouraging arrests that he fully understood were specifically prohibited is quintessential contempt of court,” argue the plaintiff attorneys representing the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
Section I: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Analysis
Supremacy Clause Implications
The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law overrides conflicting state laws. Immigration enforcement is predominantly a federal prerogative under Title 8 of the U.S. Code. State statutes that intrude on that domain are subject to preemption. Here, the TRO identified direct conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which criminalizes improper entry into the United States, not into an individual state.
Precedent Cases
- Arizona v. United States (2012): The Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s SB 1070 provisions that duplicated federal immigration offenses.
- International Longshore & Warehouse Union v. Davis (1987): Reinforced that states may not regulate in areas fully occupied by federal law.
Section II: Operational Impact on Law Enforcement
Local sheriffs and municipal police departments face uncertainty over resource allocation and legal liability. Agencies must decide whether to comply with the AG’s April 23 guidance or adhere to the TRO. Key technical considerations include:
- Record-keeping protocols for detentions under state versus federal authority.
- Training requirements to distinguish between lawful federal detainers (ICE Form I-247) and state misdemeanor charges.
- Potential civil rights litigation costs if arrests occur in violation of federal injunction.
Section III: Expert Opinions
Constitutional scholars and former federal prosecutors weigh in:
Prof. Elena Moreno, Constitutional Law, University of Florida: “This dispute illustrates the tension between state sovereignty and federal supremacy. If allowed, Florida’s statute could fragment the uniform system of immigration enforcement.”
Former U.S. Attorney James Carlisle: “The AG’s argument that he’s merely stating a legal view does not shield him from compliance obligations. Courts expect clear adherence, not commentary.”
Next Steps and 11th Circuit Appeal
The Attorney General has appealed the TRO to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Oral arguments are tentatively scheduled for late summer. Meanwhile, Judge Williams will hold a hearing on the contempt motion next week. If the 11th Circuit stays the TRO, enforcement could resume formally pending final appeal. Otherwise, the state risks sanctions.
Additional Context: National Implications
Several other states have considered similar misdemeanor statutes for unauthorized entry, framing the issue as a test of states’ rights in immigration policy. The outcome in Florida may influence pending legislation in Texas and Arizona and shape the next Supreme Court term’s docket on immigration preemption.