By: Hector A. Chichoni , Partner
On Friday, April 4, 2025, Federal Judge Kathleen Williams issued a temporary injunction against Florida’s immigration law enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature and approved by Governor Ron DeSantis in February 2025. The temporary injunction halts SB 4-C’s implementation pending further judicial review. Judge Williams issued the temporary restraining order two days after the Florida Immigration Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, and two individuals filed a lawsuit. The parties filed the lawsuit alleging, among other arguments, that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause due to immigration enforcement being a federal responsibility. Stating that the newly enacted Florida immigration law was likely unconstitutional, Judge Williams suspended its enforcement for 14 days and scheduled a hearing for April 18. This decision has significant legal implications and has sparked varied reactions from stakeholders across the state and nation.
The blocked law was part of a broader legislative effort by Florida to address immigration concerns within the state. It included provisions for increased penalties for businesses employing undocumented workers and expanded cooperation between state and federal immigration authorities. The law’s passage was met with controversy, reflecting the broader national debate over immigration policy and state versus federal authority.
The temporary block by Judge Williams underscores the ongoing judicial scrutiny over state-level immigration laws and their alignment with federal statutes. The law in question, which aimed to impose stricter regulations on undocumented immigrants within Florida, raises concerns about potential conflicts with federal immigration policies and constitutional rights. The injunction suggests that the court found enough substantial questions regarding the legality of Florida’s immigration laws to warrant a pause in their enforcement to prevent potential harm.
Judge Williams’ decision to issue the temporary injunction was based on several key factors. Primarily, the plaintiffs argued that the law infringed upon the rights of individuals and organizations by imposing undue burdens and penalties. The court found merit in these arguments, particularly concerning the potential violation of due process and equal protection clauses under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the judge considered the potential for irreparable harm to affected individuals and communities if the law was allowed to take effect immediately.
Judge Williams wrote that the plaintiffs “persuasively posit that SB 4-C unlawfully encroaches” on federal power to control immigration. Judge Williams also stated that SB 4-C, “…gives state officials authority to prosecute illegal entry or reentry in cases where federal actors may choose not to,” and that even “…when federal officials choose to commence dual prosecutions under both laws, mandatory detention provision limits federal law enforcement discretion to recommend pre-trial release and obstructs the federal courts’ ability to conduct proceedings requiring the defendants’ presence. Additionally, SB 4-C requires mandatory prison sentences for state law violations where the INA (the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act) allows for a fine or probation for the equivalent federal crime.”
The temporary block of the Florida immigration law has several potential impacts. For undocumented immigrants and advocacy groups, the injunction provides temporary relief and an opportunity to challenge the law’s provisions in court. For the state of Florida, the decision represents a setback in its efforts to implement stricter immigration controls. The ruling may also influence other states considering similar legislation, as it highlights the legal challenges such laws may face.
Reactions to Judge Williams’ decision have been mixed. Immigration advocacy groups and civil rights organizations have praised the ruling, viewing it as a victory for immigrant rights and a necessary check on state overreach. Conversely, proponents of the law, including some state officials, have expressed disappointment, arguing that the law is essential for maintaining public safety and addressing immigration-related issues at the state level.
In conclusion, Judge Williams’ temporary block of the Florida immigration law highlights the complex interplay between state legislation and federal immigration policy. As the legal process unfolds, the case will likely continue to draw attention and shape the discourse on immigration law in the United States.
About Greenspoon Marder Greenspoon Marder LLP is a full-service law firm with over 225 attorneys and more than 20 office locations across the United States. With operations from Miami to New York and from Denver to Los Angeles, our firm attracts some of the nation’s top talent in key markets and innovation hubs. Our core practice areas include Real Estate, Litigation, and Transactional Services, complemented by the capabilities of a full-service firm. Greenspoon Marder has maintained a spot on The American Lawyer’s Am Law 200 as one of the top law firms in the U.S. since 2015, and our goal is to provide exceptional client service by developing a thorough understanding of each client’s business needs and objectives in order to provide strategic, cost-effective solutions.
MEDIA CONTACT
Natalie Villanueva, Director of Marketing[email protected]
This Greenspoon Marder LLP Client Alert is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
