In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Florida's urgent request to implement a controversial law that would prohibit illegal immigrants from entering the state.
According to the New York Post, this decision upholds a lower court's block on the law while legal challenges continue to unfold.
The law, signed into effect by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in February, aimed to make entering the state as an illegal immigrant a misdemeanor offense. It was part of broader legislation aligning with President Donald Trump's efforts to curb illegal immigration. However, the measure faced immediate opposition from immigrants' rights advocates who argued it overstepped state authority.
In April, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued an order preventing Florida from enforcing this law. Judge Williams' ruling paused the implementation, citing concerns over the state's role in immigration matters, which are traditionally under federal jurisdiction. The case then escalated to the Supreme Court after Florida sought an emergency stay to lift the block.
The Supreme Court's order, issued Wednesday, denied the state's application for a stay, which had been initially presented to Justice Clarence Thomas before being referred to the full Court. No justices dissented in this decision, and the Court provided no written explanation for the ruling.
As a result, the pause on the law remains in place while the legal dispute progresses through the courts.
Florida's appeal to the Supreme Court was backed by 17 other states and the Trump administration, all of whom filed briefs supporting the state's position. State Attorney General James Uthmeier argued in his appeal about the overwhelming impact of what he called "the deluge of illegal immigration." He further contended, as reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, that states have the authority to address community harms through criminal laws.
On the opposing side, immigrants' rights groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of two unnamed Florida-based migrants living in the country without legal status. They challenged the law, asserting that immigration enforcement falls exclusively under federal control and that the state's penalties violate constitutional principles. Their arguments found support in the lower court's decision to halt the law's enforcement.
Cody Wofsy, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, welcomed the Supreme Court's denial, stating, "This denial reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration." He added, "It is past time for states to get the message." Similarly, Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, praised the ruling for upholding federal authority over immigration matters.
Jackson also criticized Florida's approach, saying, "Florida's attempt to bypass federal authority and weaponize local law enforcement to police immigration status was not only unlawful, but it also put thousands of people at risk of unjust detention, separation, and abuse."
She emphasized the potential harm such a policy could inflict on vulnerable communities. Jackson concluded, "We are grateful the Court upheld the block, and we remain committed to defending the rights and humanity of all Floridians."
Despite the setback, Florida officials expressed optimism about the law's future. Jae Williams, press secretary for the Florida attorney general's office, stated, "The law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor DeSantis is important to Florida's future, and we believe it will prevail on the merits." This reflects the state's determination to pursue the case through ongoing legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court's ruling raises important questions about the balance of power between state and federal governments in addressing immigration issues. Historically, immigration policy has been a federal responsibility, and this decision reinforces that precedent for now. However, Florida's persistence suggests that debates over state-level immigration laws are far from resolved.
As the legal challenge continues, the outcome could set a significant precedent for other states considering similar measures. The case will likely return to lower courts for further arguments on the law's constitutionality. Both sides remain steadfast, with advocates and state officials preparing for a protracted battle over immigration enforcement powers.