City of S. Miami v. Desantis, Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis

CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
Writing for the CourtBETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Citation408 F.Supp.3d 1266
Parties CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron DESANTIS, et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCase No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis
Decision Date30 September 2019

408 F.Supp.3d 1266

CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Ron DESANTIS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed September 30, 2019


408 F.Supp.3d 1275

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.

ORDER

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

408 F.Supp.3d 1276

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.

I. BACKGROUND

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.

A. Relevant SB 168 Provisions

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:

408 F.Supp.3d 1277
(1) "Federal immigration agency" means the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Homeland Security, a division within such an agency, including United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Customs and Border Protection, any successor agency, and any other federal agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law.

(2) "Immigration detainer" means a facially sufficient written or electronic request issued by a federal immigration agency using that agency's official form to request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person to be detained is a removable alien under federal immigration law, including detainers issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ss. 1226 and 1357 along with a warrant described in paragraph (c). For purposes of this subsection, an immigration detainer is deemed facially sufficient if:

(a) The federal immigration agency's official form is complete and indicates on its face that the federal immigration official has probable cause to believe that the person to be detained is a removable alien under federal immigration law; or

(b) The federal immigration agency's official form is incomplete and fails to indicate on its face that the federal immigration official has probable cause to believe that the person to be detained is a removable alien under federal immigration law, but is supported by an affidavit, order, or other official documentation that indicates that the federal immigration agency has probable cause to believe that the person to be detained is a removable alien under federal immigration law; and

(c) The federal immigration agency supplies with its detention request a Form I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien or a Form I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation or a successor warrant or other warrant authorized by federal law.

(3) "Inmate" means a person in the custody of a law enforcement agency.

(4) "Law enforcement agency" means an agency in this state charged with enforcement of state, county, municipal, or federal laws or with managing custody of detained persons in this state and includes municipal police departments, sheriffs' offices, state police departments, state university and college police departments, county correctional agencies, and the Department of Corrections.

(5) "Local governmental entity" means any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state.

(6) "Sanctuary policy" means a law, policy, practice, procedure, or custom adopted or allowed by a state entity or local governmental entity which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from complying with 8 U.S.C. s. 1373 or which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with a federal immigration agency so as to limit such law enforcement agency in, or prohibit the agency from:

(a) Complying with an immigration detainer;

(b) Complying with a request from a federal immigration agency to notify the agency before the release of an inmate or detainee in the custody of the law enforcement agency;

(c) Providing a federal immigration agency access to an inmate for interview;

(d) Participating in any program or agreement authorized under s. 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. s. 1357 ; or
408 F.Supp.3d 1278
(e) Providing a federal immigration agency with an inmate's incarceration status or release date.

(7) "State entity" means the state or any office, board, bureau, commission, department, branch, division, or institution thereof, including institutions within the State University System and the Florida College System.

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:

Cooperation with federal immigration authorities.—

(1) A law enforcement agency shall use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law. This subsection applies to an official, representative, agent, or employee of the entity or agency only when he or she is acting within the scope of his or her official duties or within the scope of his or her employment.[4 ]

(2) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by federal law, a state entity, local governmental entity, or law enforcement agency, or an employee, an agent, or a representative of the entity or agency,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Cnty. of Ocean v. Grewal, Civil Action No. 19-18083 (FLW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 29, 2020
    ...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 and, ......
  • City of S. Miami v. Desantis, Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 14, 2020
    ...law and is therefore unconstitutional. As such, Defendants’ Motion is also denied on the merits. See City of S. Miami v. Desantis , 408 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1301-02 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (Preliminary Injunction Order).21 The federal government's authorization to enter into 287(g) Agreements is codi......
  • Corp. Ins. Advisors v. Addeo, 21-CV-61769-GAYLES/STRAUSS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 8, 2021
    ...that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant.” City of S. Miami v. Desantis, 408 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2019). Thus, the court must “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of ......
  • Harvard v. Inch, CASE NO.: 4:19cv212-MW/CAS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • October 11, 2019
    ...to meet their burden of demonstrating that transfer would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, Defendants' motion 408 F.Supp.3d 1266 to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.SO ORDERED on October 11, 2019.--------Notes:1 Notably, Plaintiffs ......
4 cases
  • Cnty. of Ocean v. Grewal, Civil Action No. 19-18083 (FLW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 29, 2020
    ...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 and, ......
  • City of S. Miami v. Desantis, Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 14, 2020
    ...law and is therefore unconstitutional. As such, Defendants’ Motion is also denied on the merits. See City of S. Miami v. Desantis , 408 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1301-02 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (Preliminary Injunction Order).21 The federal government's authorization to enter into 287(g) Agreements is codi......
  • Corp. Ins. Advisors v. Addeo, 21-CV-61769-GAYLES/STRAUSS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 8, 2021
    ...that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant.” City of S. Miami v. Desantis, 408 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2019). Thus, the court must “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of ......
  • Harvard v. Inch, CASE NO.: 4:19cv212-MW/CAS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • October 11, 2019
    ...to meet their burden of demonstrating that transfer would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, Defendants' motion 408 F.Supp.3d 1266 to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.SO ORDERED on October 11, 2019.--------Notes:1 Notably, Plaintiffs ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT