City of South Miami v. Desantis

CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RON DESANTIS, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-cv-22927

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

September 21, 2021

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court following a six-day bench trial held on January 4-7, 11, and 14, 2021. See ECF Nos. [184] [186], [187], [188], [189], & [190]. Pursuant to this Court's Order, ECF No. [105], the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in advance of the bench trial. See ECF No. [160] (Defendants'^[1] Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law); ECF No. [162] (Plaintiffs'^[2] Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). The Court has carefully considered the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the parties' respective submissions, the record in this case the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. Accordingly, the Court sets forth the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ......................................................... 4

A. The Relevant SB 168 Provisions ...................................................................................... 4

B. This Action ....................................................................................................................... 7

II. FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................................................... 9

A. SB 168's Enactment ......................................................................................................... 9 1.

The Parties to this Action ............................................................................................. 9 2.

Other Relevant Actors ................................................................................................ 10 3.

Recent History of Anti-Sanctuary Legislation in Florida ........................................... 12 4.

Events Surrounding the Passage of SB 168 ................................................................ 12 5.

History of Proposed Amendments .............................................................................. 19

B. The Relevant Testimony ................................................................................................ 211.

Maria Rodriguez, Florida Immigrant Coalition .......................................................... 21 2.

Michelle Ortiz, Americans for Immigrant Justice ...................................................... 24 3.

Marleine Bastien, Family Action Network Movement .............................................. 27 4.

Mary Jill Hanson, Florida Immigrant Coalition ......................................................... 29 5.

Antonio Tovar, Farmworkers Association of Florida ................................................ 31 6.

Laura Pichardo-Cruz, Hope Community Center ........................................................ 34 7.

Laura Muñoz, Florida Immigrant Coalition ............................................................... 35 8.

Sister Ann Kendrick, Hope Community Center ......................................................... 37 9.

Christopher Cuevas, QLatinx ..................................................................................... 39 10.

Oscar Lodoño, WeCount ............................................................................................ 40 11.

Father Frank O'Loughlin, Guatemalan-Maya Center ................................................ 42 12.

David Caulkett, FLIMEN ........................................................................................... 42 13.

Anna DeCerchio, Executive Office of the Governor ................................................. 44 14.

Elizabeth Guzzo, Office of the Attorney General ...................................................... 45 15.

Daniel Olson, Office of the Attorney General ............................................................ 46 16.

Dr. Allan Lichtman ..................................................................................................... 47

a. Relevant Historical Background ............................................................................. 49

b. Discriminatory Effect .............................................................................................. 50

c. Sequence of Events ................................................................................................. 52

d. Deviations from the Norm and Contemporary Statements ..................................... 54 17.

Sheriff Robert Gualtieri .............................................................................................. 56

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................................ 57

A. Article III Standing ......................................................................................................... 57

B. Equal Protection Challenges .......................................................................................... 62 1. Discriminatory Purpose and Effect ............................................................................. 66

a. Disparate Impact and Foreseeability ....................................................................... 67

b. Historical Background ............................................................................................ 77

c. Specific Sequence of Events Leading to SB 168's Passage and Contemporary Statements and Actions of Key Legislators ...................................................................... 83

d. Procedural and Substantive Departures from the Norm ......................................... 96

e. Availability of Less Discriminatory Alternatives ................................................... 99

f. Plaintiffs' Evidence as a Whole ................................................................................ 101 2.

The Likelihood of SB 168's Enactment in the Absence of Discriminatory Motives 102

C. Permanent Injunction ................................................................................................... 104

D. Severability ................................................................................................................... 106

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 109

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 2, 2019, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 168 (“SB 168”), which aimed to further the State of Florida's interest in “cooperat[ing] and assist[ing] the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws within this state.” Fla. Stat. § 908.101 (2019). On June 14, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed SB 168 into law and it was enacted as Chapter 908, Florida Statutes. See Fla. Stat. ch. 908 (2019).

A. The Relevant SB 168 Provisions

This action concerns the following provisions of SB 168:

Detainer Mandate. Section 908.105 requires state and local law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers^[3] received from federal immigration authorities and sets forth the duties of these law enforcement agencies as they relate to immigration detainers. See Fla. Stat. § 908.105 (“Detainer Mandate”).

Transport Requirement. Section 908.104 sets forth various ways in which state and local law enforcement agencies must cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. See Fla. Stat. § 908.104. Pursuant to § 908.104(4),

When a county correctional facility or the Department of Corrections receives verification from a federal immigration agency that a person subject to an immigration detainer is in the law enforcement agency's custody, the agency may securely transport the person to a federal facility in this state or to another point of transfer to federal custody outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. The law enforcement agency may transfer a person who is subject to an immigration detainer and is confined in a secure correctional facility to the custody of a federal immigration agency not earlier than 12 days before his or her release date. A law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien to a point of transfer outside of this state.

Fla Stat. § 908.104(4) (“Transport Requirement”).

Cost Reimbursement. Section 908.106 requires county correctional facilities to enter into agreements with the federal government for the reimbursement of costs incurred pursuant to honoring immigration detainer requests. See Fla. Stat. § 908.106 (“Cost Reimbursement”).

Best Efforts Provision. In requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts, § 908.104(1) applies to law enforcement agencies or “an official, representative, agent, or employee of the entity or agency only when he or she is acting within the scope of his or her official duties or within the scope of his or her employment, ” and mandates that they “use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.” Fla. Stat. § 908.104(1) (“Best Efforts Provision”).

Sanctuary Provisions. Section 908.102(6) defines a “sanctuary policy” as a law, policy, practice procedure, or custom adopted or allowed by a state entity or local governmental entity which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from complying with 8 U.S.C. s. 1373 or which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with a federal immigration agency so as to limit such law enforcement agency in, or prohibit the agency from:

(a) Complying with an immigration detainer;

(b)

...