A recently enacted law in Florida has sparked a major legal battle over who has the authority to decide immigration policy. It purports to give Florida officials sweeping new powers to arrest, detain, and prosecute immigrants, creating state-level immigration crimes that exist entirely outside the federal system.
Will Florida's new immigration law stand? We don’t know, but it may well be a matter for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up soon.
Who Controls Immigration Policy?
Let’s take a step back and look at how immigration law typically works in the United States.
The power to decide who can come into the country—and who gets to stay—belongs entirely to the federal government. Congress, through decades of legislative work, has created a comprehensive legal framework called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This act, revised many times since 1952, determines who may enter or remain in the country, whether temporarily or permanently.
Federal officials must review each person's case individually, sometimes making difficult decisions. Several agencies enforce these laws, including:
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Customs and Border Protection
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- The State Department
These federal entities enforce immigration law by issuing visas, overseeing borders, handling deportations, and processing citizenship applications.
Even those who cross the border without authorization may eventually receive federal permission to stay, at least temporarily. Crimes related to unlawful entry or reentry are defined and prosecuted solely under federal law, with federal agents and policymakers deciding when to bring charges based on national priorities and humanitarian concerns.
That’s not to say that states and local governments have no role to play in immigration policy. They operate schools, hospitals, and police departments that serve all residents. States also set policies on driver’s licenses, college tuition, and professional licenses for undocumented immigrants.
Some police departments sign up for special partnerships with ICE (called 287(g) agreements), letting local officers help enforce federal immigration laws. Others take a different approach with “sanctuary” policies—basically saying they won’t help ICE round people up unless there’s a court order.
But the bottom line is that states cannot create their own immigration systems or grant legal status independently. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can set the rules for immigration, citizenship, and international agreements on migration.
Florida’s Bold Bill
In February 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 4C into law. It created two new state crimes:
- Illegal Entry by Adult Unauthorized Alien Into This State
- Illegal Reentry of an Adult Unauthorized Alien
In plain English, that means Florida made it a state crime for certain immigrants to enter or re-enter Florida if they were present without federal permission. The law defines “unauthorized alien” as anyone who is not lawfully present in the United States under federal immigration law.
Under this new system, if someone 18 or older came into Florida after crossing the U.S. border without going through an official checkpoint, they could be arrested and charged with illegal entry.
A first-time violation was a serious misdemeanor punishable by a mandatory nine months in jail. If it happened again, it would become a felony with at least a year behind bars. The penalties increased from there.
There was also a separate crime for illegal reentry, which targeted people who had been previously deported or removed from the U.S. If they came back into Florida, they faced felony charges and even longer mandatory prison sentences—up to five years if they had certain prior convictions.
Once someone was arrested under these laws, they had to stay in jail until their case was resolved. They were not eligible for diversion programs or civil citations that might otherwise help people avoid jail time for nonviolent offenses. As soon as someone was arrested, state police were required to notify both ICE and Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement.
Even people who were in the process of getting legal status from the federal government were not protected. There were a few defenses—like if the federal government had already given someone permission to be here or if they were covered by the Cuban Adjustment Act—but those were narrow exceptions. Notably, there was no protection for people still waiting for asylum or other humanitarian relief.
In practice, S.B. 4C meant that thousands of immigrants—including those seeking asylum or other legal relief—could be criminally prosecuted and locked up just for coming to Florida. Even if they might eventually win the right to stay in the United States. It put state officials in charge of making complicated decisions about people’s immigration status without any input from federal authorities.
Lawsuit Challenges State Overreach
Unsurprisingly, both organizations and individuals directly impacted by the law soon brought lawsuits over SB 4C.
The Farmworker Association of Florida (FWAF), a nonprofit based in Apopka with offices across agricultural towns, represented nearly 12,000 members from diverse backgrounds, including citizens, visa holders, and those awaiting immigration status. Many members traveled between states for work and now risked prosecution for simply returning to Florida.
The Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC), a Miami-based grassroots group with statewide members, also joined the suit, representing people with a wide range of immigration statuses who could be affected by the law.
Individual plaintiffs are not using their full names in court filings. They include:
- W.A., a Mexican mother fearing separation from her U.S. citizen children
- V.V., a Guatemalan woman in Immokalee with U.S.-born children who had previously been deported
- Y.M., a Honduran mother in Gainesville with a disabled U.S. citizen son and a pending U visa
All are facing heightened risks under SB 4C.
At its core, the lawsuit argues that Florida’s new law stepped far outside its lane by trying to take over something only the federal government was allowed to do: control immigration.
The plaintiffs contended that S.B. 4C broke these rules by creating its own immigration system, setting up new penalties, and telling state officers to enforce immigration law on their own terms—a direct conflict with what Congress had already put in place. They asked the court to stop Florida from enforcing this law because it violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
The named defendants included those responsible for enforcing Florida’s new immigration law:
- Attorney General James Uthmeier
- Statewide Prosecutor Nicholas B. Cox
Twenty regional state attorneys covering every judicial circuit were also named because they could bring charges under S.B. 4C.
Courts Block Florida Law
A federal district court in Florida hit pause on S.B. 4C in April, granting a temporary restraining order against enforcement while litigation played out. The court found plaintiffs likely to win because S.B. 4C intruded on exclusive federal authority over immigration—a constitutional violation—and discriminated against interstate commerce by penalizing noncitizens simply for crossing into Florida, which violated protections for free movement between states.
The court agreed that letting S.B. 4C go into effect would cause real harm. People could be arrested, jailed, and separated from their families under a likely unconstitutional statute. Meanwhile, the court found that pausing enforcement would not harm Florida since existing federal laws remained active. This judicial order blocked enforcement statewide while the legal battle continued.
Attorney General Uthmeier objected forcefully, sending letters statewide arguing that courts lacked authority over officers not party to this lawsuit. He insisted he could not prevent them from enforcing S.B. 4C without direct judicial orders binding them. Reports surfaced that arrests were made under S.B. 4C despite the court order.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams was not thrilled. She responded by converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction (a more formal pause) and provisionally certified two broad classes of plaintiffs affected by S.B. 4C enforcement. She also held Uthmeier in contempt of court, but did not go as far as ordering a fine or jail time.
Uthmeier appealed but failed to persuade the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the injunction while his appeal moved forward. That court expedited the schedule for oral arguments, but suggested Florida officials were unlikely to prevail on appeal.
SCOTUS Showdown Looms Ahead
Facing ongoing legal setbacks and unable to enforce S.B. 4C as intended, Florida petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for relief. The state has asked Justice Clarence Thomas for a stay pending appeal, arguing that its law closely mirrors federal statutes rather than contradicting them.
Florida claims Congress did not intend to preempt state laws mirroring existing criminal prohibitions on unauthorized entry or reentry. The state argued that the lower courts’ injunction was too broad because it barred all officers statewide, even those not directly involved in litigation. Officials insist this sweeping order harms their ability to protect Floridians from crime linked to illegal immigration.
Eighteen other states joined Florida’s appeal through an amicus brief led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. They argue states have the right to pass laws complementing federal immigration policy, especially when those laws do not contradict but instead mirror existing federal statutes. They warned that an expansive reading of preemption would undermine state sovereignty and prevent states from helping enforce important criminal laws.
The outcome of this case has national implications beyond Florida. Other states are watching closely and considering similar measures to expand their role in immigration enforcement.
The parties challenging Florida's law have until July 2 to file a response. As the country awaits further litigation, immigrants across Florida face uncertainty about whether new arrests might occur despite ongoing court orders blocking enforcement of S.B. 4C.
Related Resources:
- Trump's New Travel Ban Explained (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- DeSantis's Controversial Migrant Relocation Bill Passes Into Law (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Immigration Law Overview (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
