Dream Defenders v. Desantis
| Decision Date | 09 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 4:21cv191-MW/MAF |
| Citation | 553 F.Supp.3d 1052 |
| Parties | The DREAM DEFENDERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Anya Anton Marino, Harvard Law School, Jamaica Plain, MA, Georgina C. Yeomans, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc., Caroline Lewis Wolverton, James Tysse, Miranda Alyssa Dore, Steven H. Schulman, Akin Gump Strauss etc., Washington, DC, Max H. Gaston, Daniel Boaz Tilley, Nicholas Warren, ACLU Foundation of Florida Inc., Alana J. Greer, Berbeth S. Foster, Denise A. Ghartey, Miriam Fahsi Haskell, Community Justice Project Inc., Miami, FL, Rachel M. Kleinman, Morenike Fajana, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc., Anne Morrill Evans, Erica Evette Holland, Joseph L. Sorkin, Akin Gump Strauss etc., New York, NY, Nicholas Edward Petree, Akin Gump Strauss et al., LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs Dream Defenders, Black Collective Inc., Chainless Change Inc., Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward, Florida State Conference of the NAACP.
Anya Anton Marino, Harvard Law School, Jamaica Plain, MA, Alana J. Greer, Berbeth S. Foster, Denise A. Ghartey, Miriam Fahsi Haskell, Community Justice Project Inc., Daniel Boaz Tilley, Max H. Gaston, Nicholas Warren, ACLU Foundation of Florida Inc., Miami, FL, Anne Morrill Evans, Erica Evette Holland, Joseph L. Sorkin, Akin Gump Strauss etc., Morenike Fajana, Rachel M. Kleinman, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc., New York, NY, Caroline Lewis Wolverton, James Tysse, Miranda Alyssa Dore, Steven H. Schulman, Akin Gump Strauss etc., Washington, DC, Nicholas Edward Petree, Akin Gump Strauss et al. LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff Northside Coalition of Jacksonville Inc.
Karen Ann Brodeen, Anita J. Patel, Florida Attorney Generals Office, Nicholas John Peter Meros, Emily C. Percival, James William Uthmeier, Executive Office of the Governor of Florida Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant Ron Desantis.
Matthew Joseph Carson, Michael Patrick Spellman, Sniffen & Spellman PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant Walt McNeil.
Helen Peacock Roberson, Office of General Counsel, Jon Robert Phillips, Laura J. Boeckman, Sonya Harrell, Mary Margaret Giannini, Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant Mike Williams.
Christopher J. Stearns, Jr., Michael Ross Piper, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch etc., PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant Gregory Tony.
Mark E. Walker, Chief United States District Judge In April 2021, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1 (HB1 or "the Act")—better known as the "anti-riot" bill—into law. The ultimate question in this case is whether HB1 violates the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause or the Due Process clause. See generally ECF No. 1. All Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. See ECF Nos. 38, 39, 48, 49, and 50. Before this Court can begin to answer the ultimate question, it must rule on the motions to dismiss.
Before turning to the parties’ arguments, some background is necessary. HB1's new definition of "riot" sits at the core of Plaintiffs’ suit. Prior to the Act's passage, Florida law criminalized rioting, "or ... inciting or encouraging a riot." § 870.01, Fla. Stat. (1971). Because the statute did not define riot, Florida courts relied on the common-law definition of riot.
State v. Beasley , 317 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1975). HB1's section 15 amended section 870.01 to, among other things, define riot. Plaintiffs argue that this new definition "fails to clarify whether a participant in a larger demonstration where violence occurs" is guilty of rioting. ECF No. 1 ¶ 72. Plaintiffs have also moved to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing section 15. ECF No. 64.
Although Section 15 is the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs challenge HB1 in its entirety. In doing so, Plaintiffs discuss only certain sections of the Act; , sections 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 18.
Section 1 of the Act provides for appeals from a municipality's decision to reduce funding "to the operating budget of [a] municipal law enforcement agency." § 166.241(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). Any member of the municipal governing body or the state attorney for the local judicial circuit may lodge an appeal with the Executive Office of the Governor. Id. The Governor's office then holds a hearing and makes findings and recommendations to the Administration Commission, which either approves or modifies the municipality's budget. Id. § 166.241(5). The Administration Commission is part of the Executive Office of the Governor and is made up of the Governor and Cabinet. § 14.202, Fla. Stat. The Commission cannot act without the Governor's approval. See id. (). Thus, in effect, Section 1 gives the Governor veto power over any reduction in a municipal police force's budget.1
Section 2 amends section 316.2045, Florida Statutes, to prohibit persons from obstructing "the free, convenient, and normal use of a public street, highway, or road by" either "[s]tanding on or remaining in the street, highway, or road." § 316.2045(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2021).
Section 3 amends section 768.28, Florida Statutes, to provide that "[a] municipality has a duty to allow the municipal law enforcement agency to respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot" and, "[i]f the governing body of the municipality ... breaches that duty, the municipality is civilly liable for any damages ... proximately caused by the ... breach of duty." § 768.28(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021). In such a suit, the normal "sovereign immunity recovery limits ... do not apply." Id.
Section 8 creates a new crime, mob intimidation, which prohibits three or more persons "acting with a common intent, to use force or threaten to use force, to compel or induce, or attempt to compel or induce, another person to do or refrain from doing any act or to assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against his or her will." § 784.0495(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). Any person who violates this provision commits a first-degree misdemeanor and must be held without bail until brought before a court. Id. § 784.0495(2) – (3).
Section 14 creates another new crime, cyberintimidation by publication. A person commits cyberintimidation when they "electronically publish another person's personal identification information with the intent to, or with the intent for a third party to" either "[i]ncite violence or commit a crime against the person" or "[t]hreaten or harass the person, placing such person in reasonable fear of bodily harm." § 836.115(2)(a)–(b), Fla. Stat. (2021). A violation of this statute amounts to a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. See §§ 775.082(4)(a) & 775.083(1)(d), Fla. Stat.
Section 16 "amends the misdemeanor offense of Unlawful Assemblies to require anyone arrested under this provision to be held without bail until brought before a judge for a hearing." ECF No. 1 ¶ 78; § 870.02(2), Fla. Stat. (2021).
Finally, section 18 creates an affirmative defense in civil actions. Specifically, "[i]n a civil action for damages for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, it is an affirmative defense that such action arose from an injury or damage sustained by a participant acting in furtherance of a riot." § 870.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). To establish this new defense, a party may either show "that the participant has been convicted of a riot or an aggravated riot ... or by proof of the commission of such crime by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. § 870.07(2).
Other provisions of the Act not specifically discussed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint create enhanced penalties for assaults committed "in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot," § 784.011(3), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; § 784.021(3), Fla. Stat. (2021), or for battery or aggravated battery committed "in furtherance of a riot," § 784.021(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; § 784.045(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2021). Plus, the Act enhances penalties for battery on certain enumerated first responders in furtherance of a riot and sets a mandatory minimum 6-month jail sentence for anyone who batters a law enforcement officer in furtherance of a riot. §§ 784.03(2)(b), (4), Fla. Stat. (2021). The Act also criminalizes defacing or destroying "a memorial or historic property." § 806.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; § 806.135, Fla. Stat. (2021). And the Act enhances the penalties for burglary or theft when the perpetration of the theft or burglary "is facilitated by conditions arising from [a] riot," and restricts bail for those arrested for such crimes. § 810.02(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; §§ 812.014(b)(4), (b)(13), Fla. Stat. (2021).
Finally, other miscellaneous sections repeal section 870.03, Florida Statutes, which prohibited unlawfully assembled persons from "demolish[ing], pull[ing] down or destroy[ing], or begin[ning] to demolish, pull down or destroy, any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel," § 870.03, Fla. Stat. (1971) ; increase the penalties for injuring or removing a tomb or monument or disturbing the contents of a grave or tomb when the defendant does so "in furtherance of a riot," § 872.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; amend the criminal punishment code severity ranking chart consistent with the changes made by other portions of the Act, § 921.0022, Fla. Stat. (2021) ; and provide that the Act shall take immediate effect upon becoming law.
Roughly a month after Governor DeSantis signed HB1 into law, Plaintiffs brought this suit. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs are all organizations that advocate for the interests of minority groups, particularly Black Floridians, and sue on behalf of themselves...
To continue reading
Request your trial