U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in April issued a preliminary injunction to block the law, which she said was likely preempted by federal immigration authority. Uthmeier appealed the injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay of Williams’ ruling.
Such a stay could have allowed the law to be enforced while the legal battle plays out.
But a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based court Friday rejected the request for a stay. The panel said its decision “does not definitively resolve” whether federal immigration law preempts — essentially takes precedence over — the state law, but it said Uthmeier had not met tests for a stay.
“It seems likely — given the federal government’s longstanding and distinct interest in the exclusion and admission of aliens, and the (federal) Immigration and Nationality Act’s extensive regulation of alien admission — that this principle is satisfied with respect to the field of alien entry into and presence in the United States,” said the decision shared by Judges Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Embry Kidd. “Accordingly, the attorney general has not made a ‘strong showing’ that the district court was wrong to conclude that SB 4-C is likely field preempted.”
The decision also delved into a contentious issue about whether Williams’ preliminary injunction only should apply to Uthmeier and state attorneys or whether it should apply more broadly to law-enforcement officers across the state. Williams ordered it to apply broadly, but Uthmeier has argued it should only apply to him and state attorneys, who are the named defendants in the case.
The issue has become so contentious that Williams held a hearing last week about whether she should find Uthmeier in contempt. The appeals court Friday declined to issue a partial stay that would have applied Williams’ ruling only to Uthmeier and state attorneys and potentially allowed police to enforce the law.
The panel also appeared to take issue with Uthmeier’s actions, citing his “seemingly defiant posture vis-à-vis the district court. Again, he may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
The law, passed during a February special legislative session, created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The Republican-controlled Legislature said the law was aimed at helping carry out President Donald Trump’s policies on preventing illegal immigration.
But attorneys for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida and two individual plaintiffs filed the challenge in federal court in South Florida, alleging the state law is unconstitutional.
In issuing the preliminary injunction, Williams pointed to issues such as the law (SB 4-C) requiring that violators go to jail. She indicated that could conflict with federal immigration authority.
“First, it gives state officials authority to prosecute illegal entry or reentry in cases where federal actors may choose not to,” the judge wrote. “Even if federal and state officials choose to commence parallel dual prosecutions under both laws, SB 4-C’s mandatory detention provision limits federal law enforcement discretion to recommend pre-trial release and obstructs federal courts’ ability to conduct proceedings requiring defendants’ presence. Relatedly, state officials are free to prosecute a charge under SB 4-C even while a federal immigration proceeding is underway, which may determine that the defendant may remain lawfully present under federal law.”
In a May 7 motion asking the appeals court for a stay, lawyers in Uthmeier’s office disputed that the law improperly infringed on federal immigration authority.
“To aid the United States in curbing illegal immigration within the state’s borders, SB 4-C criminalizes the entry into Florida of those who have illegally entered the United States,” the motion said. “That law tracks federal law to a tee. It also retains federal-law defenses and says nothing of who should be admitted or removed from the country.”
This article appears in Jun 5-11, 2025.