ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that Florida’s attorney general was in civil contempt for violating her previous decision that temporarily halted a new state law. This law criminalizes the act of entering the state for individuals residing in the U.S. illegally as a misdemeanor.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s defense unconvincing regarding his non-compliance with her injunction that suspended the law. Uthmeier had issued a memo claiming the judge’s legal stance was incorrect, asserting he couldn’t stop law enforcement from upholding the law. A contempt hearing took place two weeks prior in Miami.
“Parties involved in litigation cannot alter the straightforward interpretation of words to suit their needs, especially when executing a court’s explicit and clear directive,” Williams stated. “Adherence to the rule of law cannot be defined otherwise.”
For sanctions, the judge ordered Uthmeier to file biweekly reports to her about whether any arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions have been made under the law, which is being challenged in court by immigrant rights groups.
In a social media post, Uthmeier said, “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.”
A day ago, the judge denied a request by Uthmeier to put on hold her earlier injunction while it is being appealed. The injunction barred law enforcement from enforcing the immigration law, as Williams said it’s likely the law will be found unconstitutional.
Williams’ decision followed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling earlier this month denying a similar request from Uthmeier. The appellate judges said the case was far from being resolved.
“But we’re mindful 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,” the judges wrote, noting Uthmeier’s “seemingly defiant posture” regarding Williams’ earlier order.
After Williams issued her original order, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injunction. But five days later, he sent a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn’t prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law.
“Again, he may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad,” the appellate judges said of Uthmeier. “But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
