Alligator Alcatraz. Guns. Social media.

Legal battles about those and myriad other Florida issues remain unresolved heading into 2026. Here are 10 big legal issues to watch in the coming year:

Alligator Alcatraz: The immigrant-detention center in the Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” has spawned a series of court battles since Florida opened the facility this summer. For example, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in April in a case that alleges violations of a federal environmental law. Other cases involve issues such as detainees’ access to attorneys and whether the state has withheld public records.

Book Fights: Publishing companies, authors and parents are challenging state and local education officials in federal lawsuits after books were removed from school libraries because of alleged improper content. For instance, a case at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenges a 2023 state law that led to books being removed. Two other pending lawsuits target Escambia County School Board decisions to remove or restrict access to books.

Guns: Nearly eight years after the measure passed following the mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to take up the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a law that prevents people under age 21 from buying rifles and other long guns. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken the unusual step of refusing to defend the law.

Immigration: A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in October about a law that created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The state appealed after a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the 2025 law was likely preempted by federal immigration authority. It remains unclear when the appellate panel will issue a decision.

Marijuana: After falling short in 2024 of passing a constitutional amendment to allow recreational marijuana, the political committee Smart & Safe Florida wants to take the issue back to voters in 2026. But first, it needs to submit enough signatures and get Florida Supreme Court approval of the proposed ballot wording. The court review could turn into a fight, as Gov. Ron DeSantis and Attorney General James Uthmeier oppose allowing recreational marijuana.

Social Media Platforms: A U.S. district judge in 2026 is expected to rule on the constitutionality of a 2021 Florida law that placed restrictions on social-media platforms, such as preventing the sites from banning political candidates. Tech industry groups challenged the law, which passed after Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, blocked President Donald Trump from their platforms after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Social Media Restrictions: Saying social media was harming children’s mental health, Florida lawmakers in 2024 passed a measure to prevent children under age 14 from opening accounts on certain platforms. Parents would have to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts on the platforms. Industry groups filed a First Amendment challenge and were backed by a district judge. The issue is pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Transgender Issues: Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration and lawmakers in recent years have approved a series of measures aimed at transgender people, sparking legal battles. For example, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing the constitutionality of a state law and regulations that restrict treatments for people with gender dysphoria. It also is considering a challenge to a ban on Medicaid coverage for hormone therapy and puberty blockers

Utility Rates: The state’s Office of Public Counsel and two consumer groups have gone to the Florida Supreme Court to challenge a decision by utility regulators to approve Tampa Electric Co. base-rate increases that began to take effect in 2025. Meanwhile, the Office of Public Counsel and consumer groups have indicated they likely will also challenge a November decision by regulators to approve a Florida Power & Light base-rate settlement.

Wetlands: In a case closely watched by conservation and business groups, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2020 improperly shifted permitting authority to Florida for projects that affect wetlands. A U.S. district judge sided with conservation groups that challenged the shift. Florida and business groups have defended giving authority to the state.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post 10 Florida legal issues to watch in 2026 appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — An environmental group this week pushed back against arguments by Mosaic Fertilizer that a federal appeals court should end a legal battle about the use of phosphogypsum, a radioactive byproduct of the phosphate industry, in a Polk County road project.

The Center for Biological Diversity, in a 15-page response filed at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, disputed Mosaic’s arguments that the case is “moot” because the company finished building parts of the road that included phosphogypsum.

The environmental group in February challenged the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection’s approval of the pilot project, which is at Mosaic’s New Wales facility. Center for Biological Diversity lawyers wrote in Monday’s response that the group is “not challenging a construction-phase permit with conditions that end at the moment of construction.”

“Mosaic’s claim that the construction of this road defeats judicial review is rebutted by the presence of post-construction requirements in the (EPA’s) notice of approval, as well as the availability of relief that could protect the center’s members from additional groundwater contamination and radiation-related harms,” the response said. “Mosaic’s brazen attempt to evade judicial review of this first-of-its-kind project should be denied.”

The issue of using phosphogypsum in road-building has long been controversial, as opponents have pointed to potential cancer risks from the substance, which is typically stored in huge stacks, known as “gypstacks.” In challenging the project, the Center for Biological Diversity has cited concerns about radon emissions and potential air and groundwater pollution.

Mosaic, a major player in the phosphate industry, intervened in the lawsuit to support the EPA. In a Dec. 5 motion arguing that the case should be dismissed as moot, Mosaic said it started construction on the project Aug. 25 and finished the parts of the road that involved phosphogypsum on Nov. 4.

“Although Mosaic is still working to complete some ‘control’ sections of the road, those sections do not use any phosphogypsum — they are constructed from common road materials,” the motion said. “Mosaic and University of Florida scientists and engineers will also test and monitor the road base as described in the (EPA) approval.”

Mosaic attorneys added, “This action (lawsuit) is now moot because construction of the phosphogypsum portions of the pilot road project is complete.”

EPA and Mosaic court filings said the project was limited to a 3,200-foot road and included phosphogypsum from a stack on the New Wales property. They have disputed the Center for Biological Diversity’s underlying arguments about the project, with Mosaic saying in a September brief that the group’s “real concern is that the pilot will serve as a gateway to broader beneficial use of phosphogypsum in road base.”

Phosphogypsum includes radium, which decays to form radon gas. Radium and radon can cause cancer, and the giant stacks are used to try to limit public exposure to radon emissions, according to information on the EPA’s website

In the document filed Monday, Center for Biological Diversity lawyers wrote that the EPA approval of the road project went beyond the construction phase. It said the lawsuit could lead to such things as additional monitoring requirements.

“(The EPA’s) approval contains conditions, which Mosaic concedes apply on an ongoing basis, intended to address harms to public health and the environment from using material that emits a hazardous air pollutant to construct a ‘pilot’ road,” the group’s lawyers wrote.

“Common sense, the (federal) Clean Air Act, and the relevant case law demonstrate that petitioner Center for Biological Diversity’s challenge to EPA’s approval is not moot upon construction of the road. Each claim brought by the center, and each remedy sought, remain available to mitigate the present and ongoing harms to the center’s members. Yet Mosaic attempts to strain the facts and misconstrues the center’s claims to suggest otherwise.”

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Activists fight Mosaic’s ‘moot’ argument over radioactive byproduct in Polk County roads appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — Mosaic Fertilizer on Friday told a federal appeals court that a legal battle should end because the company has completed parts of a Polk County road project that include phosphogypsum, a radioactive byproduct of the phosphate industry.

Mosaic urged the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss as “moot” a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the project. The environmental group filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which last year approved the use of phosphogypsum for the pilot project on Mosaic property.

“Mosaic began construction activities the week of August 25, 2025, and began applying phosphogypsum as road base on October 7, 2025,” the company, which intervened in the case on the side of the EPA, said in Friday’s filing. “It completed all portions of the road that involved phosphogypsum on November 4, 2025. Although Mosaic is still working to complete some ‘control’ sections of the road, those sections do not use any phosphogypsum — they are constructed from common road materials. Mosaic and University of Florida scientists and engineers will also test and monitor the road base as described in the (EPA) approval.”

Mosaic attorneys added, “This action (lawsuit) is now moot because construction of the phosphogypsum portions of the pilot road project is complete. The court should accordingly dismiss the (Center for Biological Diversity) petition for review.”

The Center for Biological Diversity filed the challenge in February, about two months after the EPA approved the project at Mosaic’s New Wales facility. The issue of using phosphogypsum in road-building has long been controversial, as opponents have pointed to potential cancer risks from the substance, which is typically stored in huge stacks, known as “gypstacks.”

In challenging the project, the Center for Biological Diversity has contended, in part, that a 1992 federal rule bars using phosphogypsum in road projects. It has cited concerns about radon emissions and potential air and groundwater pollution.

The EPA said in a court filing this year that the project was limited to a 3,200-foot road. Mosaic — a major player in the phosphate industry — used phosphogypsum from a stack on the New Wales property for the project, according to a declaration of a company official attached to the company’s filing Friday.

Mosaic and the EPA have disputed the Center for Biological Diversity’s arguments in the case.

“At bottom, EPA approved a site-specific project presenting total risks that are at least an order of magnitude less than placement of phosphogypsum in a stack,” EPA attorneys wrote in a September brief.

Mosaic said in a separate September brief that the Center for Biological Diversity’s “real concern is that the pilot will serve as a gateway to broader beneficial use of phosphogypsum in road base.”

Phosphogypsum includes radium, which decays to form radon gas. Radium and radon can cause cancer, and the giant stacks are used to try to limit public exposure to radon emissions, according to information on the EPA’s website.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Mosaic: Lawsuit is moot because the company has already put radioactive byproduct into other Polk County roads appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — A full federal appeals court will take up a battle about a 2023 Florida law designed to prevent children from going to drag shows, after two rulings blocked the law on First Amendment grounds.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday said it will hold a full-court, or “en banc,” hearing in the state’s appeal of a preliminary injunction issued in 2023 by U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell. The order also vacated a May decision by a panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court that upheld the injunction.

Monday’s order did not explain the court’s reasoning. But it went along with a request by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who in June sought a rehearing.

The Central Florida venue Hamburger Mary’s challenged the constitutionality of the law, which seeks to prevent venues from admitting children to adult live performances. It defines adult live performances as “any show, exhibition, or other presentation that is performed in front of a live audience, which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or specific sexual activities, … lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”

It would allow regulators to suspend or revoke licenses of restaurants, bars and other venues that violate the law. Also, it would prohibit local governments from issuing public permits for events that could expose children to the targeted behavior.

While the law did not specifically mention drag shows, it came after Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration cracked down on venues in South Florida and Central Florida where children attended drag shows. It also came amid a series of controversial laws passed by Republicans in Florida and other states about transgender-related issues.

In upholding the preliminary injunction issued by Presnell, a panel of the appeals court, in a 2-1 decision on May 13, said that “by providing only vague guidance as to which performances it prohibits, the act (the law) wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most.”

“The Constitution demands specificity when the state restricts speech,” said the 81-page majority opinion, written by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and joined by Judge Nancy Abudu. “Requiring clarity in speech regulations shields us from the whims of government censors. And the need for clarity is especially strong when the government takes the legally potent step of labeling speech ‘obscene.’ An ‘I know it when I see it’ test would unconstitutionally empower those who would limit speech to arbitrarily enforce the law. But the First Amendment empowers speakers instead. Yet Florida’s Senate Bill 1438 (the law) takes an ‘I know it when I see it’ approach to regulating expression.”

Judge Gerald Tjoflat dissented.

The panel’s majority opinion focused, in part, on the use of the words “lewd conduct” in the law. It said the term is overbroad.

But in a June 3 petition for a rehearing, lawyers in Uthmeier’s office contended that the majority’s “First Amendment analysis makes it nearly impossible for a state to regulate the exposure of children to age-inappropriate performances.”

“‘(Lewd) conduct’ draws on the well-settled meaning of ‘lewd’ in Florida law, defined by the state’s highest court to include the ‘indulgence of lust, signifying that form of immorality which has a relation to sexual impurity’ and ‘indicat[ing] gross indecency with respect to the sexual relations.’” the petition said, partially quoting from a Florida Supreme Court decision. “Florida judges and juries have successfully applied the term for decades. And the (U.S.) Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld use of ‘lewd,’ without further definition, in federal obscenity statutes.”

Monday’s order and a court docket did not indicate when the full court might hear the case.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Federal court will hear appeal over 2023 Florida drag show law appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — Unions representing college faculty members have challenged a state Department of Education plan that would expand requirements for professors to post syllabi and other course material online.

The Florida Education Association and the United Faculty of Florida filed the administrative challenge last week, contending that state education officials overstepped their legal authority in moving forward with the plan.

The Department of Education proposed a rule that included the changes to the State Board of Education, which approved it Nov. 13.

The challenge, which seeks a decision by an administrative law judge, contends that nothing in state law authorizes the Department of Education “to regulate course syllabi with such minutiae as to make them unworkable and inflexible to those preparing and utilizing them.” The information would have to be posted at least 45 days before the start of academic terms.

“While the department is authorized by statute to promulgate rules necessary to effectuate statutes it administers, there is no authority granted whereby the department may either subvert legislative intent or expand statutory language to create conditions or impose requirements not stated plainly in the statute or even alluded to when similar statutes are read in conjunction with each other,” the challenge said.

During the Nov. 13 meeting, Kathy Hebda, chancellor of the department’s Division of Florida Colleges, said the plan would expand on requirements that have been in place for general-education courses. Describing it as increasing “transparency” for students, Hebda said the plan would require posting syllabi for all courses and posting assignments for the courses.

“Now, we want to make sure that students prior to signing up, prior to enrolling for these courses, and all courses, really know exactly what’s going to be expected of them, what they’re going to be expected to read, major readings in the course, before they ever enroll in the course,” Hebda said.

The United Faculty of Florida is an affiliate of the Florida Education Association. The Department of Education and the State Board of Education oversee the state college system — but not state universities.

The plan, in part, would require publicly posted syllabi to include information about such things as the curriculum, required and recommended textbooks and instructional materials and assignments “including at a minimum, the assignment title, a brief narrative description of the assignment, and, if applicable, any required readings.”

The challenge contends the plan exceeds the department’s rulemaking authority, is vague and is “arbitrary and capricious.”

In a prepared statement issued Monday, Robert Cassanello, president of the United Faculty of Florida, said the “latest rule from the Florida Department of Education points to a continued attack on academic freedom from the state of Florida” and said colleges have responsibility to protect professors “both from physical harm and intellectual theft.”

“Through this rule, the Department of Education has overstepped its statutory legal authority and is forcing professors to comply with the use of a public-facing platform that serves to place a target on the backs of our professors and students,” Cassanello said. “More than being an overreach, it is flat out dangerous.”

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Union representing Florida college professors challenges syllabi requirements appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — A divided federal appeals court Nov. 25 ruled that Florida can begin enforcing a 2024 law aimed at preventing children from having access to certain social-media platforms, rejecting arguments that the measure violates First Amendment rights.

A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, granted the state’s request for a stay of a preliminary injunction that U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued in June to block the law (HB 3). Tuesday’s decision means the state can enforce the law while a legal battle continues to play out — with Attorney General James Uthmeier quickly posting on X that “HB 3 is now the law of the state and will be enforced.”

The law prevents children under age 14 from opening accounts on certain platforms — which court documents indicate could include platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and YouTube. Parents would have to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts on the platforms.

Supporters of the law, one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, contend that the targeted platforms have addictive features that harm children’s mental health. The majority of the appeals-court panel rejected Walker’s conclusion that the law likely violated the First Amendment.

“Rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB 3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features,” Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in the 26-page majority opinion joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa. “And even among such platforms, the law narrows its focus to those that have evidenced significant usage by children and young teens. The district court erred in holding otherwise.”

But Judge Robin Rosenbaum, in a 29-page dissent, called the law “plainly unconstitutional on its face” and said it also will affect adults, who will be subject to age verification to have accounts on the targeted platforms.

“As it’s written, the act purports to regulate the speech of everyone who uses the covered social media websites,” Rosenbaum wrote. “For minors, it acts as a categorical ban on speech (and access to speech) on covered social media platforms. And it forces the platform to demand identifying information from all users, including adults. In doing so, it chills countless users’ speech on deeply personal, political, religious and familial matters — reaching the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to protect in the first place.”

The industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed the lawsuit last year in federal court in Tallahassee. The group’s members include companies such as Google, Meta Platforms and Snap Inc., the operator of Snapchat.

The state went to the Atlanta-based appeals court after Walker issued the preliminary injunction. While Tuesday’s ruling allows the law to be at least temporarily enforced, it did not resolve the underlying battle about the injunction.

“Briefing (on the preliminary injunction) has finished, and we look forward to the opportunity to explain the law’s constitutional problems to the court directly,” Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a prepared statement Tuesday. “We will consider all available options to ensure Floridians’ online communication is safe and free. Florida’s censorship regime not only violates its citizens’ free speech rights but also makes all users — especially minors — less safe.”

The law did not name platforms that would be affected. But it includes criteria such as whether platforms’ features include infinite scroll and autoplay.

The appeals court’s majority opinion said the law was “content neutral.”

“And plaintiffs do not point to any language in the statute or other evidence that the Florida Legislature’s justification for passing the law was related to the suppression of speech or disagreement with certain topics or viewpoints,” Branch wrote. “Instead, they argue that ‘HB 3 targets websites based on the social subject matter of the material they disseminate.’ But HB 3 defines social media platforms by reference to a form of expression, not a subject matter.”

But Rosenbaum wrote that the law is “content based,” saying, for example, it doesn’t apply to streaming services that include many of the same features as the targeted platforms.

“For instance, platforms like YouTube and Snapchat are covered, but websites like Hulu and Disney+ are not,” Rosenbaum wrote. “And the act determines whether a platform is covered based on what content that platform permits. Generally speaking, if a platform involves public user-to-user speech, then the platform is covered; if it doesn’t, it’s not.”

— News Service senior writer Dara Kam contributed to this report.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Divided federal court says Florida can now enforce 2024 social media law appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — A panel of federal judges Friday said a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three Florida House districts and one congressional district can move forward — while rejecting challenges to four other House districts.

The 20-page ruling came in a request by the House for summary judgment to end the lawsuit, which alleged seven Miami-Dade County state House districts and one congressional district that crosses South Florida were gerrymandered based on race.

The three-judge panel granted the request for summary judgment on House Districts 112, 113, 114 and 116 but denied it on House Districts 115, 118 and 119 and Congressional District 26. That effectively could lead to a trial on the constitutionality of the remaining disputed districts.

“In sum, plaintiffs have offered district-specific statements of key actors and district-specific circumstantial evidence that is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether race predominated in the drawing of House Districts 115, 118 and 119 and Congressional District 26,” said the ruling, written by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra and joined by 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Britt Grant and U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz. “Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate with respect to these districts.”

But the ruling also said, “The House argues that plaintiffs fail to provide either direct or circumstantial evidence that the Legislature was motivated predominantly by racial considerations when drawing House Districts 112, 113, 114 and 116. As to these districts, the court agrees.

Unlike in regular federal lawsuits, three-judge panels handle redistricting cases.

The lawsuit, filed last year in federal court in Miami, has been one of a series of legal battles stemming from the state’s 2022 redistricting process. The plaintiffs are the groups Cubanos Pa’lante, Engage Miami and the FIU ACLU Club and individuals.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers have contended the Legislature violated equal-protection rights in the way it drew districts that would elect Hispanic candidates.

House Districts 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118 and 119, have been held, respectively, by Miami-Dade County Republicans Alex Rizo, Vicki Lopez, Demi Busatta, Omar Blanco, House Speaker Daniel Perez, Mike Redondo and Juan Carlos Porras. Congressional District 26, which stretches from Miami-Dade to Collier counties, is represented by Republican Mario Diaz-Balart. Lopez resigned her House seat last week after being appointed to the Miami-Dade County Commission.

As an example of the districts that remain in dispute after Friday’s ruling, the panel said the plaintiffs argued that House District 15 is not “visually or mathematically compact” because of a northern section described as an “appendage.”

“In particular, plaintiffs rely upon the northern extension of House District 115, which they contend is ‘an irregular appendage.’” the ruling said. “Plaintiffs also point to evidence that House District 115 forms an unusual ‘long and skinny’ shape because it ‘runs over 15.5 miles north-south but is only 1.8 miles at its narrowest point.’”

In contrast, in granting summary judgment to the House on District 112, the panel rejected arguments that the district was part of splitting up the city of Miami more than necessary.

“Even assuming that plaintiffs are correct, they do not cite any evidence that shows the Legislature decided to split the city of Miami for racial reasons,” the ruling said. “The same infirmity exists with respect to plaintiffs’ other complaint, that the Legislature could have added the southeast corner of House District 112 to a neighboring district. Again, plaintiffs do not offer any evidence that inclusion of the disputed corner in House District 112 was racially motivated.”

Friday’s ruling came three months after a separate three-judge panel upheld a 2022 Senate redistricting plan, rejecting arguments that a Tampa Bay-area district was racially gerrymandered. Also, in July, the Florida Supreme Court upheld an overhaul of a North Florida congressional district that was pushed through by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Judicial panel gives go-ahead to part of lawsuit over allegedly gerrymandered Florida districts appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — After a nine-year legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal by a Tampa Christian school that contended its speech rights were violated when it was prevented from offering a prayer over a stadium loudspeaker before a 2015 state championship football game.

The Supreme Court, as is common, did not explain its reasons. But the decision effectively was a victory for the Florida High School Athletic Association and let stand a ruling last year by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorneys for Cambridge Christian School in June filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, which stemmed from a championship game between Cambridge Christian and Jacksonville’s University Christian School at Orlando’s Camping World Stadium.

The athletic association, a non-profit governing body for high-school sports, denied the use of the loudspeaker for a prayer. The teams prayed on the field before and after the game. Those prayers could not be heard by people in the stands.

Cambridge Christian filed the lawsuit in 2016, and the dispute went to the Atlanta-based appeals court twice. In last year’s decision, a three-judge panel of the court concluded that announcements over the loudspeaker at the game were “government speech,” as they were scripted and controlled by the association. It said the association’s decision to block a prayer over the public-address system did not violate free-speech rights.

But the school’s petition filed at the Supreme Court described the appeals-court ruling as “egregiously wrong” and alleged potentially far-reaching effects if it was not overturned.

“If the Eleventh Circuit’s boundless version of government speech stands, state actors will be able to claim that virtually all private speech and religious exercise in a government setting lacks First Amendment protection,” the school’s attorneys wrote.

The association’s attorneys, however, argued in a brief last month that the appeals court correctly followed a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the “framework for identifying government speech.” They also disputed the school’s contentions about far-reaching effects of the appeals court’s ruling.

In addition, the association pointed to a 2023 state law that required allowing high schools to offer “brief opening remarks” — which could include prayers — before championship events.

The association said the “problem CCS (Cambridge Christian School) brought this case to address has thus been solved in the constitutionally preferred way — not through a uniform national policy handed down by a politically insulated court, but through a local policy crafted by a responsive legislature and an energetic executive.”

The appeals-court panel said the 2023 state law made moot parts of the lawsuit but that it needed to rule on the First Amendment issues because Cambridge Christian sought “nominal damages.”

U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell initially dismissed the case in 2017, but the appeals court in 2019 overturned the dismissal and sent the case back to Honeywell for further consideration. That led to Honeywell in 2022 ruling again in favor of the association, which prompted another appeal by Cambridge Christian.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post US Supreme Court declines to take up Tampa Christian school’s appeal over pregame prayer appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — Disputing allegations that they violated First Amendment rights, Florida wildlife officials Thursday argued that a federal judge should reject a request to reinstate a biologist who was fired because of a social-media post after the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk.

Attorneys for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Executive Director Roger Young and Melissa Tucker, a division director, said the agency fired Brittney Brown on Sept. 15 to “prevent foreseeable disruption, reputational harm and loss of public trust. The agency did not police ideology; it protected credibility central to its mission.”

“The First Amendment does not shield public employees from the consequences of speech that undermines the effectiveness, credibility or public trust on which their agencies depend. … Even if the post had some political dimension, FWC’s (the agency’s) interest in maintaining credibility and neutrality far outweighs any minimal expressive value,” the officials’ attorneys wrote.

Brown, who worked for the commission studying shorebirds and seabirds in the area of Tyndall Air Force Base in the Panhandle, filed a lawsuit Sept. 30 alleging that her firing violated First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit said Brown was fired after reposting on her personal Instagram account a post from an account called “@whalefact.” The post said, “the whales are deeply saddened to learn of the shooting of charlie kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as charlie kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say, not at all,” according to the lawsuit.

Brown’s attorneys on Oct. 3 filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that asked U.S. District Judge Mark Walker to reinstate her to her job and to prevent retaliation by the agency. In addition to alleging First Amendment violations, the motion said Brown’s post did not disrupt Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission operations.

“Plaintiff made her social media post on her personal phone while she was on vacation,” the motion said. “That political post had nothing to do with plaintiff’s job responsibilities. After all, she is a wildlife biologist, not a public information officer. In addition, plaintiff did not identify herself as an FWC employee in her post; the post itself had nothing to do with FWC or its operations; and her Instagram profile made no reference to FWC as her employer or otherwise.”

The document filed Thursday by attorneys for Young and Tucker was a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Walker has scheduled a Nov. 10 hearing on the motion.

Kirk, who led the conservative group Turning Point USA, was assassinated Sept. 10 during an appearance at Utah Valley University. After Brown made the repost on Sept. 14, Libs of TikTok, a conservative social-media account, shared a screenshot and called for her firing, according to the lawsuit. She was fired the next day.

Brown worked for the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for about seven years, according to the lawsuit. A copy of her Sept. 15 termination letter included in the lawsuit indicated she had an “Other Personal Services” position, a classification that does not include some of the protections that other employees receive.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Florida wildlife officials say they did not violate First Amendment rights in firing over Charlie Kirk post appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — Arguing that Florida’s decision to hold a bear hunt in December is not based on “sound” science and research, a conservation group last week asked a judge for an emergency temporary injunction to halt the hunt.

The group Bear Warriors United made the injunction request as part of a lawsuit filed in September challenging the decision by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve the hunt. As many as 172 black bears could be killed during the hunt, which is scheduled from Dec. 6 to Dec. 28.

“The FWC’s (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s) hunt, if it is allowed to go forward, will result in the needless destruction of Florida black bears,” the injunction motion said. “Bear Warriors has brought forward competent, substantial evidence showing that FWC’s action in authorizing the bear hunt has violated its constitutional duty to manage the state’s wildlife in a responsible, sound manner.”

The commission has not filed arguments in the case, but Leon County Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey said in a scheduling order Monday that the agency plans to seek dismissal of the lawsuit. Dempsey will hold a hearing during the week of Nov. 17 to Nov. 21 or on Nov. 24 or Nov. 25 on the Bear Warriors United request for an injunction and on the commission’s motion to dismiss the case, the order said.

Dempsey on Monday also approved a request by the group Safari Club International to intervene in the case to help defend the hunt.

In its motion to intervene, Safari Club International called hunting a “valuable tool” for managing black bears across the country.

“Almost every North American jurisdiction with a sizable resident black bear population maintains a regulated bear hunting season,” the organization said in the filing. “Bear populations in these jurisdictions are stable or increasing.”

Bear hunting has long been controversial in Florida, with the last hunt held in 2015. When the commission approved this year’s hunt on Aug. 13, Commissioner Gary Lester said the agency’s staff members brought forward “good, solid science for us to follow.”

Under the plan, hunters who received permits through a lottery-style process will each be able to kill one bear, with a maximum total of 172 bears killed. The hunt will be held in four areas of the state — in the Apalachicola region west of Tallahassee; in areas west of Jacksonville; in an area north of Orlando; and in the Big Cypress region southwest of Lake Okeechobee.

The state had an estimated 4,050 bears in 2015, considered the most recent figures by the commission.

Bear Warriors United attorneys argued Tuesday in the injunction motion that the decision to approve the hunt was “not based on sound research, science and management techniques.” Among other things, the motion contended that the decision was “based on obsolete data and assumptions, even though updated data is becoming available.”

“Despite having the ability to obtain better scientific data, the FWC commissioners directed staff to prepare a black bear hunt based on stale information,” the motion said. “The result, the Bear Warriors will show, is that bear hunts are being allowed in areas where the bear population is declining or has declining stability.”

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky

The post Florida environmental group seeks injunction to stop 2025 bear hunt appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.