City of S. Miami v. Desantis
| Decision Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-22927-BLOOM/Louis |
| Citation | 508 F.Supp.3d 1209 |
| 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., Mich Gonzalez, Michelle P. Gonzalez, Pro Hac Vice, Miriam Fahsi Haskell, Paul R. Chavez, Pro Hac Vice, Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson, Miami, FL, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Pro Hac Vice, University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic, Coral Gables, FL, Robert Kieran Dwyer, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Newberry, FL, for Plaintiffs.
James Percival, Karen Ann Brodeen, Anita J. Patel, Office of the Attorney General, Colleen Maher Ernst, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’1 Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. [111] ("Defendants’ Motion"), and Plaintiffs2 Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [112] ("Plaintiffs’ Motion"), (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court has carefully considered the Motions, all opposing and supporting submissions of the parties, the brief of Amici Curiae ,3 the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is denied, and Plaintiffs’ 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). On June 14, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed SB 168 into law, and it was enacted as Chapter 908, Florida Statutes. See Fla. Stat. ch. 908.
This action concerns the following provisions of SB 168:
Detainer Mandate. Section 908.105 requires state and local law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers4 received from federal immigration authorities, and sets forth the duties of these law enforcement agencies, as they relate to immigration detainers. See Fla. Stat. § 908.105 ("Detainer Mandate").
Fla. Stat. § 908.104(4) ("Transport Requirement").
Cost Reimbursement. Section 908.106 requires county correctional facilities to enter into agreements with the federal government for the reimbursement of costs incurred pursuant to honoring immigration detainer requests. See Fla. Stat. § 908.106 ("Cost Reimbursement").
"Best Efforts" Provision. In requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts, § 908.104(1) applies to law enforcement agencies or "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," and mandates that they "use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law." Fla. Stat. § 908.104(1) ("Best Efforts Provision").
Fla. Stat. § 908.102(6) ("Sanctuary Definition"). Based on SB 168's Sanctuary Definition, § 908.103 states that "[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"). The Sanctuary Definition and the Sanctuary Prohibition will be collectively referred to as the "Sanctuary Provisions."
Enforcement Provision. Section 908.107 sets forth the authority of the Governor and the Attorney General to enforce SB 168, in the event that state and local officers fail to comply with the immigration enforcement efforts specified therein. See Fla. Stat. § 908.107 ("Enforcement Provision").
Antidiscrimination Provision. Section 908.109 prohibits state and local entities or their agents from discriminating (i.e., basing "actions under [SB 168] on the gender, race, religion, national origin, or physical disability of a person except to the extent authorized by the United States Constitution or the State Constitution") when acting pursuant to SB 168. See Fla. Stat. § 908.109 ("Antidiscrimination Provision").
Following its enactment, on July 16, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of SB 168. See ECF No. [1] ("Complaint"); ECF No. [38] ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserted eleven counts alleging that various sections of SB 168 were unconstitutional. See generally ECF No. [38].5
On August 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin SB 168's Detainer Mandate, Transport Requirement, Cost Reimbursement, Best Efforts Provision, and Sanctuary Provisions. ECF No. [47]. On September 26, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, during which the parties argued their respective positions. On October 1, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (1) concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claims asserted in Counts III, V, and VIII, (2) denying a preliminary injunction against the Detainer Mandate, the Best Efforts Provision, and the Sanctuary Provisions, and (3) granting the request to preliminarily enjoin the Transport Requirement. ECF No. [64] ("Preliminary Injunction Order").
Moreover, on September 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring many of their claims and that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on any count asserted. ECF No. [52]. On December 12, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in part and denied it in part, concluding that: (1) consistent with its Preliminary Injunction Order, Counts III, V, and VIII were dismissed for lack of standing; (2) Count I was dismissed because it failed to state a claim; (3) Counts IV, VI, VII, and IX were dismissed on grounds of ripeness; and (4) the facts alleged in Counts II, X, and XI sufficiently stated claims for relief. ECF No. [83] ("Dismissal Order").
The Motions presently before the Court address Plaintiffs’ remaining claims—namely, the claims in Counts X and XI that Best Efforts Provision and the Sanctuary Prohibition violate the Equal Protection Clause because "SB 168 was enacted with the intent and purpose to harm and discriminate against racial and national origin minorities, including Florida residents and visitors, on the basis of race, color, and national origin," ECF No. [38] ¶¶ 395, 411, and the claim in Count II that the Transport Requirement violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), id. ¶¶ 277-84.
Defendants have filed their Motion, ECF No. [111], with their corresponding Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. [110] ("Defendant's SMF"). Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [129] ("Plaintiffs’ MSJ Response"), together with their Response to Defendants’ SMF, ECF No. [131] ("Plaintiffs’ SMF Response"). Finally, Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion, ECF No. [136] ("Defendants’ MSJ Reply"), and a Reply Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. [135] ("Defendants’ SMF Reply").
Plaintiffs have filed their Motion, ECF No. [112], along with a corresponding Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support, ECF No. [114] ("Plaintiffs’ SMF"). Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. [126] ("Defendants’ MSJ Response"), and their Response to Plaintiffs’ SMF, ECF No. [127] ("Defendants’ SMF Response"). Plaintiffs also filed a Reply in support of their Motion, ECF No. [140] ("Plaintiffs’ MSJ Reply"), and a Response to Defendants’ Additional Facts, ECF No. [141] ("Plaintiffs’ Reply SMF"). Amici6 also collectively filed an amicus brief in support...
To continue reading
Request your trial