Florida asks 11th Circuit to revive state law criminalizing the transport of immigrants

The judges considered whether Florida is infringing on the federal government's domain over immigration enforcement.ATLANTA (CN) — Florida’s chief deputy solicitor general asked a federal appeals court Friday to reverse an injunction blocking enforcement of a state law it claims prevents human smuggling.Enacted in 2023, SB 1718 criminalizes transporting any person who illegally entered the United States and has not been inspected by the federal government into Florida.“Seems like a lot rides on the meaning of the word inspect,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom said during oral arguments.At issue before the 11th Circuit was Florida’s interpretation of the term and whether its enforcement interferes with the federal government’s authority over immigration.Florida Chief Deputy Solicitor General Nathan Forrester suggested certifying the question to the state supreme court, but the judges expressed hesitancy to do so.U.S. Circuit judges Nancy Abudu and Embry Kidd, both Joe Biden appointees, questioned whether the law is preempted by federal immigration statutes, noting Congress already criminalizes assisting unlawful entry and provides extensive procedures for removal.“Even if there are these unknown individuals, do you disagree that there is still government efforts to inspect those individuals? How does Florida not impinge the federal government’s ability to do that?” Judge Kidd asked.In its appellate brief, Florida says its law mirrors federal inspection procedures, under which a person who is not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” undergoes a more “detailed inspection” or is placed in removal proceedings.Florida acknowledges the law does not hinge on whether a person is lawfully present. Instead, it argues, the law depends on whether the federal government is aware of that person’s presence in the country.“You don’t know their status and if you don’t know their status, isn’t it the federal government’s domain to determine that?” Abudu questioned.Forrester said the government’s interest should not preclude states’ efforts to do the same.The Farmworker Association of Florida and individual plaintiffs argued the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, questioning whether someone who has never had contact with federal authorities can be considered to have been “inspected by the federal government.”The nonprofit, grassroots farmworker organization has nearly 12,000 members, including immigrants with a range of immigration statuses.Some members transport fellow farmworkers into Florida for seasonal planting and harvesting work and fear they could face felony charges.They argue that the 11th Circuit and other courts have already held that states cannot regulate the transport of immigrants, because Congress has assumed that role and governs unlawful transport.A lower court paused the law from going into effect in response to their federal lawsuit.The judge correctly rejected the idea that states could “circumvent field or conflict preemption by marginally expanding a regulation to cover a small, additional category” outside the preempted field, the plaintiffs wrote in their brief.Florida argued the law falls outside the scope of federal immigration law because it applies not only to immigrants but also to U.S. citizens who illegally reenter the country.Newsom, a Donald Trump appointee, said he agreed the challengers’ reading may interpret the statute too broadly. But he questioned how Florida could enforce the law without encroaching on the federal government’s authority over immigration.Abudu pointed to another source of uncertainty: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has agreements with several states, including Florida, that expand their authority to enforce certain federal immigration laws.Attorney Spencer Amdur of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation’s Immigrants’ Rights Project argued those agreements only underscore why Florida cannot create its own individual regulations.The three-judge circuit panel did not signal when they intend to release a ruling.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads