Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, declined to lift an injunction preventing Florida from enforcing a contentious state law that seeks to criminalize the entry into the state by individuals residing in the U.S. without legal authorization. The Court’s action leaves the controversial measure on hold, pending further legal challenges that argue immigration enforcement falls squarely under federal jurisdiction.
Court’s Undisclosed Reasoning Keeps Law Immobilized
The high court issued its decision without offering any explanation for its reasoning, a common practice in such procedural orders. Notably, no Justice publicly indicated a dissent from the Court’s refusal to intervene at this stage. The effect of the ruling is significant: the law, which was slated to take effect, remains blocked, reinforcing the preliminary legal victory for opponents of the measure.
Genesis of the Florida Statute
The legislation in question was signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in February. It specifically establishes a new state crime, making it a misdemeanor for a person who lacks legal status in the United States to enter the state of Florida. Proponents of the law, including the state’s executive branch, have argued such measures are necessary for states to address what they perceive as failures in federal immigration policy and border security.
Legal Battle and Federal Preemption Arguments
The Florida statute swiftly drew legal challenges from a coalition of immigrants rights groups. These organizations filed lawsuits contending that the state law oversteps its authority, arguing forcefully that the regulation and enforcement of immigration are powers exclusively reserved to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. They assert that state-level immigration enforcement creates a patchwork of conflicting rules and interferes with established federal frameworks.
This legal argument centers on the principle of federal preemption, which holds that federal laws supersede state laws in areas where the Constitution grants exclusive authority to the federal government or where state laws conflict with federal ones.
Previous Judicial Intervention
The path to the Supreme Court’s doorstep involved earlier judicial scrutiny. In April, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the new law. Judge Williams’s ruling sided with the plaintiffs, determining that their legal challenges had a strong likelihood of success on the merits, particularly regarding the argument that the state law is preempted by federal immigration law. It was Judge Williams’s order that Florida sought to overturn or suspend at the Supreme Court.
Florida’s Plea to the High Court
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier had appealed to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to allow the state to implement the law. In his arguments, Attorney General Uthmeier contended that Florida possesses an inherent sovereign right to enact laws aimed at protecting itself and its residents, particularly in the face of what the state views as an ongoing immigration crisis. The state’s legal team argued that the law was a legitimate exercise of state power, distinct from federal immigration processing or deportation procedures.
Similarities to Texas Law
The Florida law bears a strong resemblance to a separate, even more expansive, immigration law enacted in Texas. The Texas measure also sought to empower state officials to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of crossing the border illegally. Like Florida’s law, the Texas statute has also faced significant legal challenges and has been blocked by a federal appeals court, reinforcing the broader legal debate surrounding the limits of state authority in immigration matters.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene at this stage means the legal battle over the Florida law will continue in the lower courts. The injunction imposed by Judge Williams remains in effect, preventing the state from enforcing the misdemeanor charge for entering Florida without legal status. The ongoing litigation will likely delve deeper into the complexities of federal immigration authority versus states’ rights, setting the stage for potentially prolonged legal proceedings that could ultimately return to the nation’s highest court.
