Opponents of a new law aimed at undocumented immigrants who enter Florida claimed Thursday that state Attorney General James Uthmeier should be punished in contempt of court for a letter he wrote to police after a judge stopped the legislation.
Lawyers for the opponents, who are contesting the law in federal court, contended in a 26-page petition that Uthmeier’s actions over an April 23 letter constituted “quintessential contempt of court.” They accused Uthmeier of directing police officers to make arrests under the law after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams imposed a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement.
“It is simply not acceptable that, notwithstanding this court’s order and his ethical duties, the attorney general encouraged arrests that he fully understood were specifically prohibited,” wrote lawyers for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, and two individual plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Miami on April 2 contesting the law’s constitutionality, which was passed by the Legislature during a special session in February. The statute established state charges against unauthorized immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida.
Williams ordered a temporary restraining order on April 4 to prevent the law from being enforced, which was later extended on April 18. Finally, on April 29, she ordered a more permanent preliminary injunction, stating that the measure was likely illegal.
In the April 29 verdict, Williams also directed Uthmeier to “show cause” why he should not be held in contempt or sanctioned for an April 23 letter. She mentioned arrests that occurred after the temporary restraining order and quoted from Uthmeier’s letter, which she claimed contained an attempt to “counsel law enforcement” that they were not barred from implementing the law.
In a May 12 statement, Uthmeier’s lawyers stated that he cooperated with the temporary restraining order by not executing the law (SB 4-C) and notifying law enforcement authorities of the order. It stated that Uthmeier was free to voice his dissatisfaction with Williams’ choice in the letter.
“The attorney general has consistently abided by the court’s order to cease enforcing (the law),” Uthmeier’s lawyers stated. “Nowhere does the TRO (expressly or impliedly) require the attorney general to refrain from sharing his views about the order with law enforcement.”
However, in their brief on Thursday, the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed that Uthmeier went beyond expressing his thoughts on the interim restraining order. They claimed the April 23 letter came after Uthmeier submitted a warning to police on April 18 suggesting that a temporary restraining order stopped them from carrying out the law. Williams had ordered the April 18 notice.
“Considered objectively and in the context of the earlier (April 18) letter, the attorney general’s second letter plainly undermined the notice he was directed to provide, and invited arrests which he knew would be violations of this court’s order,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated. “That is quintessential contempt of court.”
In ordering Uthmeier to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt, Williams stated that Uthmeier submitted the April 18 letter alerting law enforcement agencies to refrain from implementing the statute, but then sent the April 23 letter “reversing his prior directive.”
“It said, ‘I cannot prevent you from enforcing (the law), where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so,'” says Williams. “Aside from the clear misstatement that there is ‘no judicial order’ that restrains law enforcement from arresting individuals pursuant to S.B. 4-C, AG Uthmeier’s assessment that the order does not ‘properly’ restrain them demonstrates his active effort to counsel law enforcement.”
However, in their May 12 response to the show cause order, Uthmeier’s lawyers stated that Williams’ interpretation of the April 23 letter “relies on one portion of one sentence, rather than reading (the) letter as a whole and in the context of what preceded it: the April 18 letter” and a legal brief filed on April 23.
“In the April 23 letter, the attorney general expressly reiterated the court’s conclusion that the TRO ‘bound’ the letter’s recipients,” according to Uthmeier’s attorneys. “He explained — as he had in the April 18 letter — that he believed the court’s conclusion as to permissible scope of the TRO was ‘wrong,’ and he noted that the April 18 letter had promised his ‘office would be arguing as much in short order.'”
The plaintiffs claim the statute violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution since immigration enforcement is a federal function. Williams stated in the preliminary injunction issued on April 29 that the statute was most likely preempted by federal immigration authorities.
Uthmeier’s office has taken the preliminary injunction to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to denying that the statute is preempted by federal immigration power, Uthmeier has argued that law enforcement officials are not defendants in the action, which was filed against him and local state lawyers, and thus should not be bound by enforcement orders.