Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier defiantly declares “if being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it” after a federal judge found him in civil contempt for advising law enforcement to ignore a court order blocking the state’s new immigration law.
Key Takeaways
- Federal Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt for violating a court order that temporarily blocked Florida’s new immigration law.
- The contested Florida law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, makes it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter the state, aligning with President Trump’s immigration agenda.
- After initially informing law enforcement about the restraining order, Uthmeier later sent a contradictory memo suggesting officers could still enforce the immigration law.
- As punishment, Uthmeier must now file bi-weekly reports on all law enforcement actions related to the immigration law, with the first report due July 1.
- Both the district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have denied Uthmeier’s requests to stay the injunction while it’s being appealed.
Florida’s Immigration Law Sparks Legal Showdown
The battle over Florida’s controversial immigration law intensified when U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt of court. The ruling stems from Uthmeier’s defiance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocked enforcement of Florida’s new immigration law, which criminalized the presence of undocumented immigrants in the state. The law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, made it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter Florida, a move that strongly aligned with President Trump’s immigration enforcement priorities.
Judge Williams initially issued the TRO on April 4 after the Florida Immigrant Coalition and other groups filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. The TRO was later extended after the Florida Highway Patrol arrested over a dozen individuals, including a U.S. citizen, under the provisions of the new law. While Uthmeier initially complied and notified law enforcement agencies about the court’s order to halt enforcement, he later reversed course in a striking challenge to judicial authority.
Attorney General’s Defiant Stance
In a bold display of defiance, Uthmeier sent a memo to law enforcement agencies suggesting they could continue enforcing the immigration law despite the court’s clear prohibition. In his communications, he claimed that “no judicial order…properly restrains you from” enforcing the law and that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce” the immigration statute. This direct contradiction of the court’s order prompted Judge Williams to demand an explanation from Uthmeier about why he should not be held in contempt.
“If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it,” said James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General
The federal judge was unequivocal in her rebuke of Uthmeier’s actions, emphasizing the importance of adherence to court orders regardless of personal disagreement. Judge Williams ruled that Uthmeier had violated her April 18 order and imposed sanctions requiring him to file bi-weekly reports documenting any law enforcement actions taken under the contested immigration law, with the first report due by July 1. The judge rejected Uthmeier’s argument that he couldn’t prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law.
Judicial Rebuke and Legal Implications
Judge Williams delivered a scathing critique of Uthmeier’s conduct in her ruling, emphasizing the non-negotiable nature of court orders in our legal system. “Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order. Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning,” said Judge Williams, in her decision. The court determined that the Florida law was likely unconstitutional, as immigration enforcement falls primarily under federal jurisdiction according to established legal precedent.
“Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order. Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning,” said Kathleen Williams, U.S. District Judge.
Uthmeier’s appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the injunction while the case proceeds was similarly denied. The appellate judges noted his defiant stance in their decision, stating, “But we’re mindful that the burden in this posture is for the Attorney General to make a ‘strong showing’ that he is likely to succeed on the merits. And we do not think he tips the balance in his favor.” This double rejection by both the district and appellate courts represents a significant setback for Florida’s attempt to implement its own immigration enforcement regime.
