In brief
Last weekend, two men in Bradenton, Florida, were charged under a suspended immigration law that prohibits illegal residents from entering the state. The law had been halted by a federal judge earlier this year, yet local law enforcement continued to make arrests based on it. Florida's Attorney General has been mandated to submit regular reports after being held in civil contempt for his stance on the law.
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Two men last weekend were wrongly charged under a far-reaching Florida immigration law that is currently suspended by a judicial order. Both men were charged in separate instances in Bradenton under a Florida law that outlaws people living in the U.S. illegally from entering the state, despite a federal judge's earlier ruling that the law cannot be enforced while it is challenged in court.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier disclosed in a report that some Florida officers are continuing to wrongly charge people under the halted law, including several arrests made in the past few months. In the most recent incidents, one man was stopped for having loose branches and unsecured equipment in his truck and revealed he had an expired driver's license. After contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it was confirmed he was in the U.S. illegally.In another instance, the driver's vehicle caused a blockage due to an engine block falling out, and upon inquiry, he admitted to not having a proper driver's license and his illegal status.Though both men faced state charges of illegal entry, those will be dropped by prosecutors. Instead, the man from the first arrest will be charged with driving with an expired license, while the second man faces charges for driving without a valid license.Florida’s stringent immigration law had criminalized the act of entering the state without legal permission by avoiding immigration officials. However, a U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order in April that prohibited the law's enforcement.Despite this, Attorney General Uthmeier, initially instructed law enforcement to avoid enforcing the law, later indicated he would not prevent officers from doing so, leading the judge to impose bimonthly reporting requirements on him to ensure compliance with her injunction.
