City of S. Miami v. Desantis
Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis |
Parties | CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron DESANTIS, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Alana J. Greer, Florida Legal Services, Inc., Oscar Hernan Londono, Community Justice Project, Inc., Mich Gonzalez, Michelle P. Gonzalez, Pro Hac Vice, Paul R. Chavez, Pro Hac Vice, Victoria Mesa, Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson, Miami, FL, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs.
James Percival, Office of the Attorney General State of Florida, Edward Mark Wenger, Barbara Jean Throne, Florida Office of the Attorney General, Colleen Maher Ernst, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs'1 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing. ECF No. [47] ("Amended Motion"). Defendants2 filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion, ECF No. [19] ("Response"), to which Plaintiffs replied, ECF No. [39] ("Reply"). Defendants were also permitted to file a Surreply in Opposition, ECF No. [45] ("Surreply"), in order to respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, ECF No. [38] ("Amended Complaint"), which added one additional Plaintiff. The United States of America filed a Statement of Interest, ECF No. [23], to which Plaintiffs responded, ECF No. [50] ("SOI Response"). Amici curiae were permitted to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs, ECF No. [61] ("Amicus Brief"). The instant Amended Motion requests that the Court grant a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Chapter 908 of the Florida Statutes because the law is preempted by federal immigration law and is unconstitutionally vague. The Court has carefully considered the Amended Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the parties' arguments presented at the Hearing, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Amended Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On May 2, 2019, the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 168 ("SB 168"), which aimed to further the State of Florida's interest in "cooperat[ing] and assist[ing] the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws within this state." Fla. Stat. § 908.101 (2019) ; ECF No. [5-1] at 2. The law was adapted from a model law originally drafted by organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be hate groups, based on their anti-immigrant platforms. ECF No. [38] at 26. Moreover, SB 168 was described by its sponsors as an "anti-sanctuary cities law." Id. at 26, 27. On June 14, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed SB 168 into law, and it was enacted as Chapter 908 of the Florida Statutes. See Fla. Stat. ch. 908; ECF No. [5-1] at 7. Among other things, SB 168 prohibits so-called "sanctuary policies" that indicate certain jurisdictions' intent not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). ECF No. [19] at 4. The law delineates specific immigration enforcement efforts with which local jurisdictions must comply. These include complying with immigration detainers and transporting aliens to federal facilities. Id. at 4-5; see Fla. Stat. § 908.105 ; Fla. Stat. § 908.104(4). Furthermore, under SB 168, the Attorney General and the Governor are vested with enforcement authority to seek injunctive relief or to exercise the Governor's suspension power, should a government official fail to comply with the law's mandates. Fla. Stat. § 908.107. This enforcement provision is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2019. ECF No. [19] at 5.
The instant action challenges the constitutionality of numerous provisions of SB 168 and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the law from taking effect. ECF No. [38] at 3.
The provisions of SB 168 that are being challenged are reproduced in full below. Any supplemental provisions that are relevant to the Court's analysis are also set forth below.
SB 168 sets forth the definition of certain terms used in the statute in § 908.102. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint specifically challenges § 908.102(6)'s definition of "sanctuary policy" ("Sanctuary Definition"). Nevertheless, many of the other definitions in this section are relevant to the Court's analysis.
Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
Fla. Stat. § 908.102.
Based on § 908.102(6)'s Sanctuary Definition, § 908.103 states, "Sanctuary policies prohibited.—A state entity, law enforcement agency, or local governmental entity may not adopt or have in effect a sanctuary policy." Fla. Stat. § 908.103 ("Sanctuary Prohibition").3
The requirement that state and local law enforcement entities and agencies cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, § 908.104, states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cnty. of Ocean v. Grewal, Civil Action No. 19-18083 (FLW)
...the direction and supervision of the Attorney General after completing adequate immigration training." City of South Miami v. Desantis , 408 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1293-94 (S.D. Fl. 2019) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) ). There is, however, no requirement that localities enter into such agreements a......
-
City of S. Miami v. Desantis
...injunction against the enforcement of the Transport Requirement and concluded that the provision was conflict preempted. See Desantis , 408 F. Supp. 3d at 1301-02. The Court also found that this provision was severable from the rest of SB 168. Id. at 1309. Plaintiffs urge the Court to apply......
-
Corp. Ins. Advisors v. Addeo
...balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. (quoting Winter v. Nat. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). In disputes between an employer and its former employee, “[c]ourts do not hesita......
-
SkyJet, Inc. v. CSDS Asset Mgmt.
...balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). The undersigned has already found that Skyjet has neither established a substan......