Federal judge blocks Florida riot law

A Florida federal judge has blocked enforcement of the state’s “riot” law following last year’s racial justice protests, calling it too broad and unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement, which was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April.

The bill, HB1, defines a riot in a way that Walker says is vague and could be used to attack constitutionally protected free speech.

“If this Court does not direct law enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands of law-abiding Floridians,” Walker wrote. “It violates the First Amendment.”

The bill was proposed and passed after protests across the country last summer over the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed by white Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin.

Critics have argued that it is vague and too broad and does not specify whether someone in a larger protest where violence is occurring could be convicted under it.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the ruling was “a major victory for civil rights and racial justice advocates.” He, along with other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, sued on behalf of a number of groups.

“HB1 effectively criminalizes our constitutional right to peaceful protest and exposes anyone – especially black people protesting against police violence – to risk of unlawful arrest, injury and even death,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement Thursday. “This targeting of protesters is shameful and directly contradicts our Constitution.”

DeSantis said the state would appeal and the decision was “a pre-arranged finding” of the Tallahassee Federal District Court.

“We will win on appeal. I guarantee we will win on appeal,” DeSantis said.

Walker began his 90-page decision by noting other cases in Florida where people have been arrested for challenging Jim Crow laws under the pretext of a riot. “What has passed is a prologue,” he wrote.

Walker wrote that the new law is vague enough that it could be interpreted as criminalizing the continuation of a protest after the violence – even if the protesters were not involved in any violence and do not support the violence.

It could also be read to criminalize staying at the scene to record the police reaction, he wrote.

While those who sued said the bill was a direct response to manifestations of racial justice, the judge wrote that “its vagueness allows those in power to arm its enforcement against all group that wishes to express all message the government disapproves of. “

Among other things, the law increases the criminal penalties for assaults on the police during a “riot”.

It also creates a second degree felony for the destruction or destruction of a memorial or historic property.