Florida asks Supreme Court to let it enforce state illegal immigration law

The law makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to enter the state of Florida if they are in the United States illegally. — Image credit: Getty Images

This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Turning to SCOTUS

Florida is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate enforcement of a new immigration law that was blocked by a lower court in April.

New Immigration Law

The law makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to enter the state, but a judge paused it amid a legal challenge, calling it “likely unconstitutional.”

Immigration advocates sue

A U.S. District Court halted the law in April after groups including the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworker Association sued.

Full story

Florida has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to enforce a new immigration law that lower courts temporarily blocked in April. The law makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to enter the state of Florida if they are in the United States illegally, granting law enforcement the authority to arrest them upon entry.

Immigration law faces legal challenge

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the immigration measure into law in February. It creates a new criminal offense for anyone who enters Florida after unlawfully crossing the U.S. border. Federal law classifies crossing into the country without legal permission as a civil offense.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

A U.S. District Court judge issued an injunction in April, which halted enforcement after immigration advocacy groups, including the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworker Association, filed a lawsuit.

“Florida’s SB 4C is not just unconstitutional — it’s cruel and dangerous,” Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement. “This law strips power from the federal government and hands it to state officers with no immigration training or authority, threatening to tear families apart and detain people who have every legal right to be here. Our communities deserve safety, dignity, and due process — not politically motivated attacks.”

The judge indicated the law is likely to be found “unconstitutional.” The lawsuit alleged that the measure violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which deems federal laws as the supreme law of the land.

Now, Florida has filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision and allow enforcement to continue while the legal challenge is underway.

Inside the emergency filing to SCOTUS

In the emergency filing, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier argued the lower court’s decision “inflicts irreparable harm on Florida and its ability to protect its citizens from the deluge of illegal immigration.”

The filing states, “Without this Court’s intervention, Florida and its citizens will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts.”

Contempt ruling raises stakes in legal battle

The state’s attorney general was held in contempt of court last week in connection with the case. A federal judge ruled that the Florida official had violated the court’s injunction by telling law enforcement officers he could not prevent them from enforcing the immigration law.

The dispute now heads to the Supreme Court, which will decide whether to hear the case and potentially allow Florida to resume enforcement of the law.

Cole Lauterbach (Managing Editor), Lawrence Banton (Digital Producer), and Zachary Hill (Video Editor) contributed to this report.

Tags: ACLU, Florida, Immigration, Ron DeSantis, Supreme Court, Undocumented migrants

[KARAH RUCKER]

THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS ASKING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW AUTHORITIES TO ENFORCE A NEW IMMIGRATION LAW –
AFTER IT WAS BLOCKED IN APRIL BY LOWER COURTS WHILE LITIGATION PLAYS OUT.
THE LAW MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR PEOPLE TO ENTER THE STATE OF FLORIDA IF THEY ARE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY – WHICH IS ENOUGH TO ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ARREST THEM.

GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS SIGNED THE IMMIGRATION LAW IN FEBRUARY –
WHICH CREATES A NEW CRIME FOR ANYONE ENTERING THE STATE AFTER ILLEGALLY CROSSING INTO THE U.S..
BUT IN APRIL – A U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE PUT THE LAW ON HOLD AFTER IMMIGRATION ADVOCACY GROUPS SUED –
SUGGESTING IT’S LIKELY THE LAW WILL BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NOW THE STATE IS ASKING THE SUPREME COURT THROUGH AN EMERGENCY APPEAL TO REVERSE THAT JUDGE’S DECISION –
AND ALLOW THE STATE TO ENFORCE THE LAW WHILE IT’S BEING CHALLENGED.

THE STATE’S ATTORNEY GENERAL WROTE TO THE SUPREME COURT,
THE LOWER COURT’S “decision inflicts irreparable harm on Florida and its ability to protect its citizens from the deluge of illegal immigration.”

“Without this Court’s intervention, Florida and its citizens will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts.”

THE STATE’S ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT LAST WEEK OVER THE CASE.
THE JUDGE SAYS THE FLORIDA OFFICIAL TOLD LAW ENFORCEMENT HE COULDN’T PREVENT THEM FROM ENFORCING THE IMMIGRATION LAW –
GOING AGAINST THE JUDGE’S ORDER.
NOW EYES TURN TO THE SUPREME COURT – AND WHETHER THEY WILL PICK UP THE CASE.

Why this story matters

This story matters because it reveals how a single legal challenge can pause the implementation of a state law, setting off a high-stakes legal battle that tests the limits of state power, federal oversight, and the role of the courts in interpreting constitutional authority.

State versus federal authority

The legal challenge centers on whether Florida can create and enforce immigration laws that may conflict with federal policies, raising issues under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Legal challenges

The law has been challenged in court by advocacy groups and temporarily blocked by a federal judge, making the Supreme Court's potential role critical in determining if the law can be enforced during ongoing litigation.

Immigration enforcement

Florida’s push to enforce tougher immigration laws highlights a broader shift among GOP-led states, as they move to assert more state-level control over immigration enforcement.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 46 media outlets

Context corner

The legal challenge touches on the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which generally places federal law above state law, particularly in immigration matters long administered at the federal level. The case highlights ongoing tensions as states try to address concerns about unauthorized immigration amid broader national political debates and federal policy disputes.

History lesson

Previous state-level efforts to regulate immigration—such as Arizona's SB 1070—were challenged on similar constitutional grounds and largely struck down by the Supreme Court. Historically, the federal government has maintained primary authority in immigration enforcement, with state initiatives often leading to extended legal battles and sometimes partial reversals by higher courts.

Terms to know

Supremacy Clause: A constitutional provision establishing that federal law takes precedence over state laws. Injunction: A court order preventing specific actions—in this case, enforcement of the law. Civil Contempt: A legal finding for failing to follow a court order, as applied to the Florida Attorney General in this dispute.

Sources

Bias comparison

Media outlets on the left frames Florida’s immigration law as constitutionally dubious and “controversial,” emphasizing judicial critiques and Attorney General Uthmeier’s civil contempt for defying court orders, underscoring a commitment to “rule of law.”
Media outlets in the center remain detached, neutrally outlining the legal process without partisan language.
Media outlets on the right pivot to portraying the law as a necessary, “strict” or “measured” crackdown on the harms—such as violence and trafficking—caused by “illegal immigration,” using emotionally charged terms like “wreaks havoc” and highlighting state sovereignty.

Report an issue with this comparison