The Broward County school board voted 5-4 to suspend without pay Jessica Norton ‘s employment at Monarch High School, where her 16-year-old daughter played on the varsity volleyball team the last two seasons. She can also no longer work as a computer information specialist but must be given a job with equal pay and responsibility.

The board found that Norton’s actions violated the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender females from playing girls high school sports. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Legislature adopted it in 2021, over the Broward board’s opposition.

“Our employee made a choice not to follow the law,” said board member Debbi Hixon, who proposed the censure. But, she said, “It was a first offense. We would not terminate someone on their first offense.”

Norton, who was removed from the school after the violation was discovered in November and then placed on paid leave, called the vote an “incorrect decision” but said it was better than being fired. She said she wasn’t sure if she would accept the punishment and return to work. She wanted to talk it over with her daughter, who left the school even though she had been her class president and a homecoming princess. Maybe they could return together, she said.

“I did nothing wrong. Nothing,” Norton said.

Treatment of transgender children has been a hot-button issue across the country over the last few years. Florida is among at least 25 states that adopted bans on gender-affirming care for minors and one of at least 24 states that’s adopted a law banning transgender women and girls from certain women’s and girls sports. The Nortons are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit trying to block Florida’s law as a violation of their daughter’s civil rights. It remains pending.

During Tuesday’s hour-long debate, Hixon proposed Norton’s punishment after casting the deciding vote against an earlier motion, which called for a five-day suspension with no change in jobs. She said that was not severe enough. It failed by a 5-4 vote.

But, Hixon argued, firing Norton was too harsh for a seven-year employee with sterling evaluations and a caring reputation among students.

“This isn’t somebody who abused or harmed children,” Hixon said. “This is really about not following the law.”

Still, Hixon said, Norton put the district in a legally difficult spot by falsely attesting her child was born female on her state athletic eligibility form. The Florida athletic association fined Monarch $16,500 for violating the act, put the school on probation, and the district could be sued under the act if another student believes she was kept off the volleyball team and lost scholarship opportunities because of Norton’s daughter.

Hixon said she wanted Norton moved from her job as a computer information specialist because in that position she could learn of another transgender student who was playing girls sports and might not report that to administrators.

“That puts us as a school district in a bad place,” Hixon said.

The four other “yes” votes believed a five-day suspension or no punishment was appropriate but agreed to the 10-day ban as a compromise they could live with. They pointed to previous three-, five- and 10-day suspensions that were given to employees who had physically or verbally abused students as evidence Norton was being punished too harshly.

“I believe this case is unique,” member Allen Zeman said. “You can correctly surmise there have been problems with how we (the board) have dealt with it. You can also correctly surmise that rules and laws have been broken. But I think it is important that we come up with a solution that is consistent with the others.”

At least three board members supported Superintendent Howard Hepburn’s recommendation that Norton be fired because she had knowingly violated the law. Hepburn had overridden a committee’s recommendation that Norton be suspended 10 days.

Member Torey Alston said he believes the past suspensions cited by Norton’s supporters were too lax and shouldn’t preclude them from firing her. He said the board was sending the message that it would “go soft” on employees who violate statutes simply because they disagree with them.

“I have zero tolerance for breaking the law,” Alston said.

Norton and her husband stormed out of the meeting when member Brenda Fam repeatedly called her child a boy. Fam argued that Norton should face criminal charges though the Fairness act only carries civil penalties aimed at violating schools. She compared Norton to a parent who falsifies an address to get their child into a better school, an act that is a crime under Florida law.

Fam said she supports the Fairness act because it protects biological girls from having to compete against transgender girls who may be bigger and stronger. Norton and her supporters have argued her daughter has been on puberty blockers and estrogen for several years and has no physical advantages over her teammates or opposing teams.

“This was not a question about her son or her family, it was an issue about what she did as an employee and how she harmed others,” Fam said. She later denied misgendering Norton’s child, saying she was quoting from a newspaper article.

Norton, after the meeting, said Fam intentionally misgendered her child to anger her.

“It worked. I don’t think that a school board member should be misgendering children,” Norton said. “It’s a horrible thing.”

The post Broward County school board suspends employee who allowed her transgender daughter to play girls volleyball appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

Lawyers for Walt Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, had asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the indictment against their client. They argued, among other things, that Nauta was charged because of insufficient cooperation with prosecutors’ investigation and because of a personal animus that they say prosecutors harbored against one of Nauta’s attorneys.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has denied all the claims, and Cannon in her four-page order Saturday said Nauta had not met the high bar required to get the case dismissed.

Nauta and another co-defendant, Mar-a-Lago property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, are accused of conspiring with Trump to conceal evidence from investigators as they sought to recover classified documents that were taken to the Palm Beach, Florida property after Trump’s presidency ended.

All three men have pleaded not guilty.

No trial date has been set in the case. Trump has also sought to dismiss the case, and Cannon pointedly noted at the conclusion of her order: “This Order shall not be construed as commenting on the merits of Defendant Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Selective and Vindictive Prosecution or on any other motion pending before the Court.”

The post Judge declines to throw out charges against Trump valet in classified documents case appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

The order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had been expected in light of still-unresolved issues in the case and because Trump is currently on trial in a separate case in Manhattan charging him in connection with hush money payments during the 2016 presidential election. The New York case involves several of the same lawyers representing him in the federal case in Florida.

Cannon said in a five-page order Tuesday that it would be “imprudent” to finalize a new trial date now, casting further doubt on federal prosecutors’ ability to bring Trump to trial before the November presidential election.

Trump faces dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida classified documents that he took with him after he left the White House in 2021, and then obstructing the FBI’s efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

Trump faces four criminal cases as he seeks to reclaim the White House, but outside of the New York prosecution, it’s not clear that any of the other three will reach trial before the election.

The Supreme Court is weighing Trump’s arguments that he is immune from federal prosecution in a separate case from special counsel Jack Smith charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia have also brought a separate case related to election subversion, though it’s not clear when that might reach trial.

The post Judge in Trump’s classified documents case cancels May trial date; no new date set appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

Dr. Leah Roberts, a reproductive endocrinologist and fertility specialist with Boca Fertility in Boca Raton, said the anti-abortion laws being enacted by Florida and other red states are being vaguely written by people who don’t understand medical science. The rules are affecting not just women who want therapeutic abortions, meaning procedures to terminate viable pregnancies because of personal choice, but also nonviable pregnancies for women who want to have babies.

“We’re coming in between them and their doctors and preventing them from getting care until it’s literally saving their lives, sometimes at the expense of their fertility,” Roberts said.

The new ban has an exception for saving a woman’s life, as well as in cases involving rape and incest, but Roberts said health care workers are still prevented from performing an abortion on a nonviable pregnancy that they know may become deadly — such as when the fetus is missing organs or implanted outside the uterus — until it actually becomes deadly.

“We’re being told that we have to wait until the mother is septic to be able to intervene,” Roberts said.

Besides the physical danger, there’s also the psychological trauma of having to carry a fetus that the mother knows will never be a healthy baby, Roberts said.

“They’re feeling the kicks for months after they’re being told that they’re never going to have a live birth,” Roberts said. “And it’s just horrifying when you could take care of it at 20 weeks, and they could move on, and they could get pregnant with their next pregnancy and be able to hold their babies that much sooner.”

The Biden campaign quickly placed blame for the “extreme” six-week ban on former President Donald Trump.

“Trump is worried the voters will hold him accountable for the cruelty and chaos he created. He’s right. Trump ripped away the rights and freedom of women in America. This November, voters are going to teach him a valuable lesson: Don’t mess with the women of America,” President Joe Biden said in a statement about the new abortion ban.

Vice President Kamala Harris will also criticize the six-week ban on abortions during an event Wednesday in Jacksonville.

She said a huge issue with the ban is that the doctors who perform emergency abortions have to learn the procedures by performing therapeutic abortions. So if most abortions are banned, the next generation of doctors won’t be able to develop the skills needed to perform an emergency abortion.

Roberts said she’s concerned the restrictions will also prompt veteran doctors to leave Florida, as they have in other states that have enacted abortion bans.

“We’re going to have less access to care for our general population, even if it’s just basic maternity care and normal OB-GYN care, because people are leaving,” Roberts said.

In addition, women are going to have to travel far from home to get abortions. Florida Access Network executive director Stephanie Pineiro said the organization, which helps provide funding for abortions, expects costs to increase dramatically. She estimates it will cost around $3,000 for a woman to travel to another state for an abortion. The closest place after 12 weeks would be Virginia or Illinois, but before 12 weeks would be North Carolina.

“It’s very emotionally draining and challenging to deal with these types of barriers and have to leave your home,” Pineiro said.

The Florida Supreme Court, with five of its seven members appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruled 6-1 last month to uphold the state’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which cleared the way for the six-week ban. The 15-week ban, signed by DeSantis in 2022, had been enforced while it was challenged in court. The six-week ban, passed by the Legislature a year later, was written so that it would not take effect until a month after the 2022 law was upheld.

Republican state Sen. Erin Grall, who sponsored the six-week ban, previously said bodily autonomy should not include abortions.

“We live in a time where the consequences of our actions are an afterthought and convenience has been substitution for responsibility,” Grall said, “and this is unacceptable when it comes to the protection of the most vulnerable.”

Voters may be able to enshrine abortion rights in Florida’s constitution after a separate state Supreme Court ruling allowed a proposed constitutional amendment to be on the November ballot. The proposal says, “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” It provides for one exception that is already in the state constitution: Parents must be notified before their minor children can get an abortion.

Florida Democrats hope young voters would vote to enshrine abortion rights, as a way to combat the 900,000 voter registration edge Republicans have over Democrats in the state. They hope moderate views of the ballot initiative will turn out younger voters to vote Democrat when faced with the binary choice between a six-week abortion ban or protecting abortion until viability.

Jayden D’Onofrio, chairman of the Florida Future Leaders political action committee, said young Florida voters have a “real opportunity to shape the electoral landscape.” Being that abortion rights have prevailed in elections nationwide, he thinks that Florida can engage young voters to register and vote for Democrats.

Nathan Mitchell, president of Florida Atlantic University College Republicans, said he would support a total abortion ban, and he hopes the amendment doesn’t pass. Mitchell said he’s seen most people want restrictions on abortion, usually for bans within 10 to 15 weeks of gestation.

Most Republican-controlled states have adopted bans or restrictions on abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. A survey of abortion providers conducted for the Society of Family Planning, which advocates for abortion access, found that Florida had the second-largest increase in the total number of abortions provided since the decision. The state’s data shows that more than 7,700 women from other states received abortions in Florida in 2023.

Florida Democratic leaders are encouraging women to seek help from abortion funds and resources. On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book encouraged women to access abortion travel funds and urged them to avoid “taking matters into your own hands.”

—

The post Florida’s 6-week abortion ban takes effect as doctors worry women will lose access to health care appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

In a visit to Wisconsin on Monday, Biden detailed a proposal that would cancel at least some debt for more than 30 million Americans. It’s been in the works for months after the Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first try at mass cancellation.

Biden called the court’s decision a “mistake” but ordered the Education Department to craft a new plan using a different legal authority. The latest proposal is more targeted than his original plan, focusing on those for whom student debt is a major obstacle.

Here’s what to know about the new plan:

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM BIDEN’S FIRST PLAN?
Biden’s first attempt at widespread student loan cancellation would have erased $10,000 for borrowers with yearly incomes of up to $125,000, plus an additional $10,000 if they received federal Pell grants for low-income students. It was estimated to cost $400 billion and cancel at least some student debt for more than 40 million people.

The Supreme Court rejected that plan last year, saying Biden overstepped his authority.

The new plan uses a different legal justification — the Higher Education Act, which allows the secretary of education to waive student loan debt in certain cases. The Education Department has been going through a federal rulemaking process to clarify how the secretary can invoke that authority.

The new plan targets five categories of borrowers, focusing on those believed to be in the greatest need of help. It would provide relief to an estimated 30 million borrowers. The administration has not said how much the plan would cost.

WHO’S ELIGIBLE?
Biden’s new proposal would offer cancellation to five categories of borrowers.

The widest-reaching provision aims to reset student loan balances for borrowers who have seen their debt grow because of unpaid interest. It would cancel up to $20,000 in interest for Americans who now owe more than they originally borrowed. That cap wouldn’t apply for individuals who make less than $120,000 a year or couples who earn less than $240,000 and also are enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan.

The Education Department says 25 million people would be eligible for that relief, including 23 million who would get their interest erased entirely.

Borrowers who are eligible for other federal forgiveness programs but haven’t applied would also get their loans canceled under the new proposal. It applies to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and income-driven repayment plans, among others. It’s meant to help people who missed out on forgiveness because of complex paperwork, bad advice or other obstacles. An estimated 2 million people would be eligible for that help.

All debt would be canceled for borrowers who have been repaying undergraduate loans for 20 years or more, or 25 years for those with graduate school debt. The Biden administration says it would erase loans for more than 2 million people.

Those who attended college programs of “low financial value” would be eligible for forgiveness. The plan would cancel debt for borrowers who went to institutions that lost eligibility for federal education funding because they cheated students. It would also cancel loans for people who went to college programs that left graduates with low incomes compared to their student loans.

A final category would cancel loans for Americans facing hardship that prevents them from repaying their student loans. The rule would allow the Education Department to cancel debt for borrowers who are considered highly likely to default on their loans, and it would create an application system for individuals to detail other forms of hardship.

DO I NEED TO APPLY?
Most of the cancellation would be done automatically with no need to apply. That would be the case for the interest cancellation, borrowers with older loans, those that attended low-value programs, and those eligible for other cancellation programs.

There’s one exception: If borrowers want to make a case that they face some sort of hardship that merits cancellation, they would need to apply individually.

WHEN WILL I GET RELIEF?
The Biden administration says some debt could be canceled as soon as this fall, including interest that has snowballed on top of borrowers’ loans.

That timeline would require some maneuvering. The Education Department said it plans to release a formal proposal in the “coming months.” That would usually be followed by a public comment period of 60 days. Then if the rule is finalized by Nov. 1, it would usually take effect the following July — in this case, July 2025.

But the Higher Education Act authorizes the education secretary to fast-track rules for “early implementation” in some cases. The Biden administration recently used that power to accelerate student loan cancellation offered through a new federal repayment plan. Invoking that authority could allow Biden to start canceling debt later this year.

IS THIS A SURE THING?
Anything but. The Biden administration says it’s confident that the plan is allowed by the Higher Education Act. But loan cancellation of this type is uncharted territory, and conservative opponents are expected to challenge Biden’s plan in court.

Republicans have repeatedly fought Biden’s plan for student loan cancellation, saying it’s an unfair benefit shouldered by taxpayers who repaid their loans or didn’t go to college. Opponents say the Supreme Court was clear that widespread loan cancellation must come from Congress.

If Biden’s plan faces a lawsuit, courts could order the administration to halt cancellation until legal questions are sorted out. That scenario could leave the plan on hold beyond the November presidential election. Even if it survives legal challenges, a Donald Trump victory would spell almost certain doom for Biden’s plan.

CAN CANCELLATION BE REVERSED?
If Biden’s plan is overturned after the administration starts canceling loans, it would present a thorny question: Can forgiven student loans be unforgiven?

Technically, there are ways that canceled student debt can be reinstated. But doing it on such a large scale could be difficult and costly, requiring heavy work from loan servicers contracted to work for the Education Department.

It could also be politically fraught to reinstate debt after it’s been forgiven. Ultimately it could be up to the courts to decide how to handle debt that’s already been canceled.

—

The post What to know about Biden’s latest attempt at student loan cancellation appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

On Monday, the state Supreme Court energized abortion rights proponents with two rulings: one that paves the way for a six-week abortion ban and another that will give voters the opportunity to repeal the ban as they also cast their vote for president.

“This puts Florida in play,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse.

Newhouse said it’s not just the national abortion referendum, which has benefited Democrats in other states. It’s also the fact that Florida voters will be living with the strict newly implemented abortion restrictions for the months leading up to the November election.

But while it’s true the battle over abortion has translated into electoral success for abortion rights advocates in other states, this is Florida, and Democrats have a history of turning opportunity into disappointment, leaving it to be determined whether the issue could flip Florida back blue as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump head toward a rematch.

The abortion debate didn’t stop Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis from winning reelection by a landslide in 2022, even after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. DeSantis signed new abortion restrictions and Democrats correctly warned he would further strip away rights to the procedure.

Adam Geller, a Republican pollster who polled for Trump’s campaign in 2019, said while the abortion vote has been “really energizing” in states with moderate or somewhat conservatives, Florida is an “obviously more Republican state.”

“What Biden has now in 2024 is the burden of defending his record the last four years,” Geller said. “With all of the things he has to defend in the last four years, abortion is simply going to get watered down and it’s going to get lost in the context of these other issues.”

Support for abortion cuts across party lines and has been winning at the ballot box even in states that voted for Trump and have Republican-majority legislatures.

Voters sided with abortion rights in seven states since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, including Republican-leaning Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio.

In a landslide victory for abortion rights supporters, Kansas voters in 2022 rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have stripped residents of abortion rights. Kentucky voters similarly rejected a 2022 ballot measure aimed at denying constitutional protections for abortion. Last year, abortion rights were front and center in key races, including Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure enshrining protections in the state constitution.

Democrats have been reluctant to pump money into Florida — one of the most expensive states to buy campaign advertisement — but immediately sprung into action after Monday’s ruling. Biden’s campaign included Florida in an ad buy Tuesday, hitting Trump on abortion rights.

Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez said the state’s high court has provided a longshot opening for Biden to win Florida.

“We’re clear-eyed about how hard it will be to win Florida, but we also know that Trump does not have it in the bag,” said Chávez Rodríguez on a phone call with reporters.

Asked after a speech on Tuesday about Florida’s six-week ban on abortion going into effect, Trump said, “We’ll be making a statement next week on abortion.”

The former president has been threading the needle when it comes to abortion. He routinely takes credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, paving the way for a wave of new restrictions.

But Trump has also repeatedly criticized fellow Republicans for being too hardline on the issue, blaming candidates who opposed exceptions — in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk — for the party’s midterm losses later that year.

And Trump, a New York snowbird turned Florida resident who will also vote on the state’s abortion ballot question, previously called DeSantis’ signing of Florida’s six-week ban on the procedure a “terrible mistake ″ and suggested even anti-abortion activists found it “too harsh.”

Democrats have been striving to be relevant in Florida since 1999 when Republican Jeb Bush was sworn in and the GOP took control of the executive office and the Legislature for the first time. The following year Democrat Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes, giving George W. Bush the presidency.

During the five-week struggle to settle Florida’s 2000 election, Gore’s strategy was to seek recounts in targeted counties until the Supreme Court stopped the process. A media analysis and ballot review concluded Gore would have still lost under the recounts he sought, but he could have won had he successfully fought for a statewide recount.

Following 2000, Florida supported Bush for reelection, then twice gave the state to Barack Obama before backing Trump for two terms. Republicans have consistently won statewide races for governor, Senate and cabinet, but often by razor margins, raising Democrats’ hopes for the next election cycle only to see them dashed again.

Here’s a small list of issues where Democrats believed they were finally going to win back power in Florida:

— In 2002, Jeb Bush campaigned against a wildly popular ballot proposal to limit school class sizes. The class size amendment passed with overwhelming support, but so did Bush.

— In 2004, Democrats thought anger over losing the 2000 recount and President Bush’s low approval rating were going to help party nominee John Kerry take the state. Bush easily won Florida.

— In 2006, Jeb Bush was being forced out of office by term limits, and Democrats saw the open governor’s seat as a potential pickup. They were miserably wrong, as then-Republican Charlie Crist easily defeated his Democratic challenger.

— In 2010, Democrats mistakenly saw Obama’s 2008 victory as a harbinger for success, only to see Republican Marco Rubio ride the tea party movement to win a Senate seat.

— In 2010, then Democratic chief financial officer Alex Sink, was considered a shoo-in over Republican Rick Scott, then-dogged by his past as the CEO of a hospital chain that paid a record Medicaid fraud fine. Scott won with less than half the vote and was reelected again in 2014, again with less than half the vote.

— In 2016, Democrats hoped having a medical marijuana referendum on the ballot would help boost Hillary Clinton over Trump. It didn’t.

— In 2018, Democrats were convinced that DeSantis’s decision to run as a mini-Trump would make him a loser at the polls. DeSantis won with less than 50% of the vote in an election requiring a recount.

And once DeSantis took office, Republicans overtook Democrats’ advantage in voter registration, DeSantis won reelection in 2022 by a record margin for a Republican, Rubio won reelection by an enormous margin and Republicans made further gains in the Legislature and in Congress. Florida now has more than 5.2 million Republicans compared to fewer than 4.4 million Democrats.

—

The post Democrats eye Florida’s abortion vote as chance to flip the state. History says it’ll be a challenge appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

That’s why the news in Texas over immigration enforcement is so unusual. Lawmakers there passed a bill that would make illegally crossing the border a state crime, which would theoretically allow state law enforcement to arrest migrants. But that clashes with how, generally, laws work in the U.S. The Texas law was supposed to go into effect this month, but there’s been a big back-and-forth in the courts about that.

Here’s a closer look:

FEDERAL V. STATE LAWS
In general, it works like this: State legislators make laws for their states that are enforced by state police or state patrol or other local law enforcement. The federal government does the same for the nation overall, and federal law enforcement agents like the FBI or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers enforce those laws. Generally, federal laws take precedence over state laws.

But states can and often do pass legislation that encroaches on federal law. That’s when things get really murky.

THE TEXAS LAW
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been increasingly looking to take immigration matters into his own hands. The Republican governor is a huge critic of President Joe Biden and says the Democratic administration’s policies are failing.

In November, Texas passed a law known as S.B. 4 that would make it a state crime to cross into Texas from a foreign country anywhere other than a legal port of entry. It would be considered a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony after that. The passage of this law would mean that state police officers could arrest any migrant caught crossing illegally. Previously, they were limited to arresting migrants found on private land for trespassing.

WHERE THINGS STAND
Right now, the law is on hold after lots of back-and-forth in the courts that has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the court allowed Texas to give local law enforcement the ability to arrest migrants. The court’s conservative majority rejected an emergency application from the Biden administration to stop the law from going into effect. The Biden administration argued the law is a clear violation of federal authority that would cause chaos in immigration law.

But then a federal appeals court issued an order that prevents Texas from enforcing the law. That’s where things are right now.

HOW DO IMMIGRATION ARRESTS WORK?
At the U.S. border, Border Patrol agents arrest people caught crossing illegally and send them to Border Patrol stations, where they are placed into deportation proceedings.

Some are then transferred to immigration detention, which is managed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Others are released into the U.S. to wait for their deportation hearings and appear for immigration court hearings. Immigration court is run by a third agency overseen by the Justice Department.

Customs officers, meanwhile, check identification at ports of entry, and they arrest anyone caught smuggling people over the border in vehicles.

ICE officers also arrest and deport people already in the interior of the United States. Usually these migrants are targeted because they’re accused of committing some other local crime. Other agents arrest employers suspected of mistreating migrants.

If someone is arrested by local or state police, it’s for a crime unrelated to immigration. They’re turned over to immigration authorities once they’ve been adjudicated.

HAS ANYONE BEEN ARRESTED?
Texas authorities had not announced any arrests made under the law while it was briefly enforceable.

As for federal arrests, yes. The Border Patrol, an agency under Homeland Security, arrests migrants caught crossing illegally. The patrol’s most recent data is from January, and it’s broken out by sector. In the Del Rio sector, it made 16,712 arrests. In the Rio Grande Valley, there were 7,340. Those arrests are down considerably from earlier months.

HAS ANY OTHER STATE TRIED THIS BEFORE?
Yes. Another border state, Arizona, passed a similar law in 2010 that authorized police to arrest migrants if there was probable cause they had committed an offense that would make them deportable, and it made it a state crime for “unauthorized immigrants” to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification. This case, too, went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But many of the provisions were struck down.

“The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration,” former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

—

The post Texas wants to arrest immigrants in the country illegally. Why would that be such a major shift? appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a Florida federal judge’s August 2022 ruling that the so-called “Stop WOKE” act violates the First Amendment as it applies to businesses and is impermissibly vague.

“By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content. And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints — the greatest First Amendment sin,” Circuit Judge Britt C. Grant wrote for the court.

The governor’s office Tuesday was considering options for a further appeal.

“We disagree with the Court’s opinion that employers can require employees to be taught—as a condition of employment—that one race is morally superior to another race,” the governor’s office said in an email. “The First Amendment protects no such thing, and the State of Florida should have every right to protect Floridians from racially hostile workplaces.”

The law prohibits teaching or business practices that it says contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others. It also bars the notion that a person’s status as privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by their race or gender, or that discrimination is acceptable to achieve diversity.

DeSantis frequently referred to the law during his unsuccessful run for president, with the slogan that Florida was where “woke goes to die.” Other parts of the law involving education have also been challenged but have not been blocked.

Florida attorneys had argued that the law banned conduct, such as requiring employees to attend diversity meetings, rather than speech. The court disagreed.

“Banning speech on a wide variety of political topics is bad; banning speech on a wide variety of political viewpoints is worse,” Grant said in the opinion.

The lawsuit was filed by private entities, Clearwater-based Honeyfund.com and others, claiming their free speech rights are curtailed because the law infringes on company training programs stressing diversity, inclusion, elimination of bias and prevention of workplace harassment. Companies with 15 or more employees could face civil lawsuits over such practices. Honeyfund is in the wedding registry business.

—

The post Court rules Florida’s ‘stop woke’ law restricting business diversity training is unconstitutional appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

Glen Gilzean was appointed Monday by the Republican governor to oversee voting in Florida’s fifth-largest county, where more than 1.4 million residents live among the largest theme park resorts in the U.S. Just last May, Gilzean was chosen to be administrator of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Committee after DeSantis’ allies took over the Disney World governing district.

Gilzean previously served as a DeSantis appointee on the Florida Commission on Ethics and was president and CEO of Central Florida Urban League.

The county’s longtime elections supervisor Bill Cowles retired in January, about a year before his term was up. Cowles, a Democrat, was first elected in 1996 to the job, which oversees elections in Orlando and surrounding communities.

Gilzean didn’t respond to an emailed inquiry.

Responding to an email, the district’s office of public information said the “transition should be completed in one week,” without offering further details. As the district’s administrator, Gilzean had an annual salary of $400,000. He’ll earn about half that as elections supervisor.

In a joint statement, a group of federal and state Democratic lawmakers in the Orlando area, including U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost, said Gilzean’s appointment was just the latest example of DeSantis naming unqualified loyalists to elected positions “so he can control every part of our state and local governments and warp our democracy to his will.”

“Glen Gilzean is a Ron DeSantis loyalist who’s top priority seems to be making Ron DeSantis happy, not protecting the integrity of our elections,” the Democratic lawmakers said. “This move signals the Governor’s focus on silencing the voices of Central Florida voters as one of the most northern progressive hubs in our state. We cannot let this happen.”

Gilzean’s new appointment comes at a time of turmoil for the district, which has seen an exodus of experienced staffers since the takeover and lots of litigation. The district provides municipal services such as firefighting, planning and mosquito control, among other things.

A fight between DeSantis and Disney began in 2022 after the company, facing significant internal and external pressure, publicly opposed a state law that critics have called “Don’t Say Gay.” The 2022 law bans classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades and was championed by DeSantis, who used Disney as a punching bag in speeches until he suspended his presidential campaign this year.

As punishment, DeSantis took over the district through legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and appointed a new board of supervisors, which named Gilzean as administrator.

Disney sued DeSantis and his appointees, claiming the company’s free speech rights were violated for speaking out against the legislation. A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in January. Disney has appealed.

A separate lawsuit over who controls the district is still pending in state court in Orlando.

In his new job, Gilzean will oversee the GOP presidential primary this month, primaries in August and the November general election. He has no previous experience running elections. Currently, five Democrats, a Republican and an independent have filed to run for elections supervisor in Orange County later this year. Gilzean is not among them.

—

The post DeSantis names Disney World district administrator to run elections in Democratic Orange County appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.

The bill sent to the governor last week would have banned minors under 16 from popular social media platforms regardless of parental consent. DeSantis had concerns about privacy issues and parental rights, but appears to be on board with a new proposal that would allow 14- and 15-year-olds on social media with parental consent and ban access for younger children.

“The Legislature is about to produce a different, superior bill,” DeSantis said in his veto message. “Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.”

He said he anticipates signing the new bill, which will go before the Senate on Monday, just days before the legislative session ends March 8.

Lawmakers were expecting the veto and worked with DeSantis on the compromise. The issue is a top priority for Republican House Speaker Paul Renner, who believes social media is causing psychological damage to children.

“My personal view is we ought to go to 18. It is bad. It is poison,” Renner said. “Their business model is addiction that causes harm to children for profit. That’s not good.”

But Renner expressed optimism after the veto and said the new proposal is an improvement to the original bill and will have broader public support.

“It’s a good product of compromise,” he said. “It will have a better chance of getting through the courts.”

Several states have considered similar legislation. In Arkansas, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a law in August that required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.

Supporters in Florida hope the bill will withstand legal challenges because it would ban social media formats based on addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos, rather than on the content on their sites.

—

The post DeSantis vetoes social media ban for kids under 16. Florida lawmakers offer new option appeared first on The Florida Daily Post.