Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier defiantly stands by Trump’s immigration agenda despite being found in contempt of court for instructing law enforcement to ignore a federal restraining order blocking enforcement of the state’s new illegal immigration law.
Key Takeaways
- U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt for violating a temporary restraining order on Florida’s new immigration law.
- Uthmeier sent mixed messages to law enforcement, first acknowledging the TRO but later suggesting they could still enforce the law despite the court order.
- As punishment, Uthmeier must file bi-weekly reports detailing any law enforcement actions taken under the blocked immigration law.
- Both the district court and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Uthmeier’s requests to stay the injunction, with judges noting his defiant stance was unlikely to succeed.
- Uthmeier declared he is willing to accept contempt charges to defend Trump’s immigration agenda and what he considers the rule of law.
Federal Judge’s Contempt Ruling Challenges Florida Immigration Enforcement
The legal battle over Florida’s immigration enforcement reached new heights as U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt of court. The ruling stems from Uthmeier’s actions following a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on April 4 that blocked enforcement of Florida’s new immigration law, which made it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter the state. This law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, aligned with President Trump’s strong stance on illegal immigration but quickly faced opposition from immigration advocacy groups.
The contempt finding centers on Uthmeier’s conflicting communications with law enforcement agencies. After initially informing them about the TRO as ordered by the court, Uthmeier later sent a contradictory letter suggesting that officers could still enforce the law despite the judge’s order. In this communication, he claimed that “no judicial order…properly restrains you from” enforcing the statute and that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce” the immigration law. This direct contradiction of Judge Williams’ clear order prompted the contempt proceedings.
Attorney General’s Defiant Stand on Immigration Enforcement
Rather than back down after being found in contempt, Uthmeier has taken a defiant stance, positioning himself as defending Trump’s immigration policies against judicial overreach. The Attorney General made his position clear through public statements that show he prioritizes what he sees as proper immigration enforcement over compliance with the court order. As sanctions for his contempt, Uthmeier must now file bi-weekly reports on any law enforcement actions related to the immigration law, with the first report due by July 1.
“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
Judge Williams didn’t mince words in her ruling, emphasizing that officials cannot simply reinterpret court orders to suit their preferences. “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. in her decision. The contempt finding came after the Florida Highway Patrol had already arrested over a dozen people under the new law, including a U.S. citizen, which prompted an extension of the TRO.
Appeals Court Rejection Intensifies Legal Standoff
Uthmeier’s attempts to have the injunction stayed while appealing have been rejected at multiple levels. The district court denied his request, noting that the law is likely to be found unconstitutional. Similarly, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene, specifically citing Uthmeier’s defiant stance against the judge’s order as part of their reasoning. The appellate judges wrote 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 legal confrontation highlights the growing tension between state-level immigration enforcement efforts and federal jurisdiction. Florida’s law represents one of the more aggressive state-level approaches to immigration enforcement, similar to measures taken in Texas and other border states supporting President Trump’s immigration policies. While advocates for stronger immigration enforcement view these measures as necessary steps to address the border crisis, critics argue they overstep state authority in what should be a federal matter.
