11th Circuit denies stay in challenge Florida immigration statute

I wrote about the scope-of-injunction issues in the challenge to Florida's law criminalizing undocumented persons entering or being present in the state--whether, in an action against the AG and every local prosecutor, the court could enjoin law enforcement from arresting people under the law.

An 11th Circuit motions panel refused to stay the injunction, on the merits and as to its application to non-party law enforcement. On the latter, the court takes a weird approach that I do not addresses the real issue. The court lays out a binary choice: Either the AG and law enforcement officials are "(in effect) a single monolithic entity" or they "are totally separate entities over which he has no meaningful control." If the former, the injunction has the proper scope to provide complete relief; if the latter, the AG may lack Article III standing to appeal the injunction as it applies to these non-parties. (I think this piece comes from Judge Newsom, a panel member and Fed Courts nerd--and it is fun to see Uthmeier hoisted on his own petard). Either way, the AG failed to make the necessary "strong showing" to justify a stay as to scope.

But the issue should not be whether the AG controls law enforcement as a single entity, which would bring law enforcement within the injunction under FRCP 65(d)(2)(A) (party) or (B) ("agents" or "servants"). The issue hould be whether law enforcement is in "active concert or participation" under (C). That need not involve control and certainly not "single monolithic entity." Instead, it is concerned with "officials who might be a part of the enforcement effort" who, if not enjoined, would thwart the efficacy of the district court's order. Plaintiffs might satisfy (C) even without showing AG control over law enforcement. That is the real unresolved question.

The AG also tried to squeeze this into the controversy and criticism of "universal injunctions." He ignored: 1) universality concerns plaintiffs protected not defendants bound and 2) the district court certified a provisional class, which the AG did not contest, so the injunction was specific to the plaintiff class. Both show the AG is a hack, trying to use buzzwords to appeal to whoever might be watching. Good for the court for not buying it.