The United States Supreme Court declined on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, to reinstate a controversial law passed this year in Florida that would have allowed state authorities to pursue criminal charges against undocumented immigrants entering Florida territory.
This rejection represents a major setback for the Trump administration, which supported this legislation.
In a swift decision rendered without comment, as is often the case for emergency requests, the justices rejected Florida’s request to suspend a federal court order that had blocked the law from taking effect. No justice officially opposed this decision, according to the New York Times.
The law, passed by Florida’s Republican legislators earlier this year, created two new criminal offenses: entering the state after evading federal authorities—punishable by a mandatory nine-month imprisonment for a first offense—and returning to Florida after a previous deportation, classified as a felony. Individuals suspected of these offenses were to be detained without the possibility of bail throughout judicial proceedings.
According to the New York Times, two immigrants, supported by migrant rights organizations, quickly challenged this law. Their lawyers argued that it usurped the federal government’s constitutional prerogatives regarding immigration policy and foreign relations.
Judge Kathleen M. Williams, sitting in the federal court in Miami, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by temporarily suspending the law’s implementation. This decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that federal immigration provisions clearly took precedence over Florida’s legislation.
This perspective aligns with established jurisprudence, notably the landmark 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration matters, according to the New York Times.
“While Arizona may have legitimate frustrations with illegal immigration,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote at the time, “it cannot pursue policies that undermine federal law,” the New York Times recalled, noting that the Trump administration, through Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, had advocated for the law before the Supreme Court. According to him, the Florida provisions had been “carefully modeled” after federal laws, aiming to “protect citizens from the devastating effects of illegal immigration.”
However, this reasoning failed to persuade the justices. The New York Times emphasizes that Florida’s apparent defiance of judicial decisions may have also influenced the outcome.
Last April, despite Judge Williams’ order blocking the law, Attorney General Uthmeier sent a letter to Florida law enforcement officials stating that “nothing legally prevented them” from enforcing the new legislation. The judge interpreted this stance as an act of defiance and found Mr. Uthmeier in civil contempt of court. “Parties to litigation cannot rewrite words to suit their wishes, especially when dealing with a clear judicial order,” she wrote in her decision, according to the New York Times.
On social media, Mr. Uthmeier responded: “If being found in contempt is the price to pay for defending the rule of law and supporting President Trump’s agenda against illegal immigration, then so be it.”
Florida is not alone in attempting to legislate on immigration: according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) cited by the New York Times, at least six other states have adopted similar laws over the past two years, galvanized by President Trump’s security-focused discourse. However, in each case, courts have blocked their implementation, citing the supremacy of federal law.
On July 3, a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a Texas law very similar to Florida’s. “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and expulsion of aliens — is an exclusively federal prerogative,” wrote Judge Priscilla Richman, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court’s rejection does not mark the definitive end of the litigation. The appeals process continues, and the case could return before the justices in the coming months.
Source: New York Times
