Legislation filed Thursday would set guidelines for local government rules involving the materials used for drinking straws and stirrers.

The measure (SB 958), sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Bradley, R- Fleming Island, says it is intended to “combat the harmful impacts of paper paper drinking straws” and “provide businesses and residents of this state with better alternatives to single-use plastic straws and stirrers.”

The proposal says the change is needed to “promote uniformity of drinking straw and stirrer regulations throughout this state, rather than forcing businesses to comply with a patchwork of local regulation.”

The bill would require local governments enacting straw regulations to “opt for ones that are renewable, home compostable certified, industrial compostable certified and marine biodegradable.”

The measure was filed for the legislative session that begins Jan. 13.

“Many businesses and communities in this state are using paper drinking straws and stirrers as a purportedly better option for public health and the environment. However, independent university studies have shown that most paper straws contain harmful PFAS chemicals, exposure to which is linked to concerning health risks,” the bill says.

A widely cited 2023 study by the University of Antwerp found PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” in many straws.

Many companies have replaced plastic straws with paper or plant-based straws due to environmental concerns. A number of Florida cities, including Orlando, West Palm Beach, Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale, over the past decade have banned single-use plastic straws by businesses or at city-owned venues, parks, and events.

In February, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for a policy aimed at phasing out paper straws to “alleviate the forced use of paper straws nationwide.”

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

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

The post Proposed law would ban paper straws statewide 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.

A ban on state investments in Ben & Jerry’s will continue, but the ice-cream brand’s former parent company, Unilever, is no longer on the prohibited list.

State Board of Administration Executive Director Chris Spencer told Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state Cabinet on Tuesday that Unilever has been removed from Florida’s list of “Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel,” which prohibits state investments and contracts with the companies.

Meanwhile, Magnum Ice Cream Co., which now includes Ben & Jerry’s, has been added. “Quick note, for those that didn’t pay (attention) or didn’t notice last week, on Dec. 8, Unilever completed their spin-off of Magnum Ice Cream Co., which now includes Ben & Jerry’s,” said Spencer, whose agency manages the massive state pension fund and other investments.

“Ben & Jerry’s was the offending entity as part of the Unilever overall consolidated entity that was in violation of the statute. As a result of that, we have removed Unilever and all of their affiliated entities, which is 13 different legal entities, from the scrutinized list, and added Magnum Ice Cream to the scrutinized list.”

In 2021, DeSantis and other state officials took aim at Unilever based on a decision by Ben & Jerry’s to stop selling its products in the West Bank and Gaza. Ben & Jerry’s said its decision was consistent with its values and “concerns shared with us by our fans and trusted partners.”

At the time, the state had about $139 million in holdings in Unilever and its subsidiaries.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

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

The post Florida lifts investment ban on Ben & Jerry’s former parent company appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on Wednesday filed a lawsuit alleging Starbucks Coffee Co. has violated a state civil-rights law through race-based hiring and race-based compensation decisions.

“Defendant (Starbucks) has implemented employment policies that favor persons belonging to only certain favored races—in other words, defendant has engaged in discrimination against persons belonging to non-favored races—namely, white, Asian, and multiracial people,” Uthmeier’s office said in the lawsuit filed in Highlands County.

The lawsuit came after Uthmeier’s office on Nov. 26 said it was dismissing a case against Starbucks that was filed last year at the state Division of Administrative Hearings. In the dismissal, it indicated it would pursue the issue in state or federal court.

Starbucks dispute the allegations in the Division of Administrative Hearings case, saying in a document last month that the state did not “identify any person in Florida who should be awarded the unspecified monetary relief sought by the OAG (Office of the Attorney General), nor does it identify any injury to such person—for example, an adverse employment action against the individual or a comparator to raise an inference that such action was motivated by discrimination. Instead, the OAG seeks to proceed solely based on speculation that respondent’s (Starbucks’) goals or initiatives theoretically could give rise to discrimination.”

But in the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Uthmeier’s office alleged that for the “past five years and continuing to the present day, defendant has excluded or disfavored nonminorities in numerous employment practices and programs.”

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

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

The post Florida AG sues Starbucks over what he says is race-based hiring appeared first on Creative Loafing Tampa.

TALLAHASSEE — President Donald Trump on Monday pushed again for the federal government to control regulation of artificial intelligence as Florida lawmakers begin to delve into the effects of AI on the state.

“There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI,” Trump Monday posted on Truth Social, adding he intends to sign an executive order on the topic this week.

“We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” Trump continued.

“You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something. THAT WILL NEVER WORK!” Trump added.

Gov. Ron DeSantis has objected to the possibility of the federal government preempting state AI laws. He posted online Monday that an executive order couldn’t preempt state legislative action.

“Congress could, theoretically, preempt states through legislation,” DeSantis posted on X. “The problem is that Congress hasn’t proposed any coherent regulatory scheme but instead just wanted to block states from doing anything for 10 years, which would be an AI amnesty. I doubt Congress has the votes to pass this because it is so unpopular with the public.”

On Tuesday, several Florida House panels will hold discussions about issues related to AI. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, said Monday the discussions are not a prelude to a massive regulatory bill.

“AI is a transformative technology, and like all technology it can have positive and negative impacts,” House spokeswoman Amelia Angleton said in a statement. “Our intention is to have a thoughtful discussion about AI in various policy areas and look at how current or potential uses align or misalign with Florida’s laws. Any conversation about a larger regulatory framework should be had at the federal level not in the states.”

Included among the House discussions, the Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee is slated to look at the impact of data centers on electric utilities; the Careers & Workforce Subcommittee will review the challenges of AI on the workforce; the Natural Resources & Disasters Subcommittee will consider how AI will be used in emergency management; and the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee will look at the impact of AI on the practice of law.

Senate President Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, said Monday he wants to see what is in the president’s executive order about AI regulation.

“The president has a view about this which is more global, is very energetic about wanting to see where AI can lead the business community … about the national defense,” Albritton told reporters. “If AI can help us defend this country more readily and more efficiently, I’m all in. So globally, I think the president has a great perspective on it.”

“What I appreciate about where the governor is coming from is,” Albritton continued, “he’s got concerns about how it impacts Floridians on a personal or individual basis and making sure that those liberties are protected.”

Over the summer, DeSantis was among opponents of a proposal in the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that, for a decade, would have prevented states from regulating artificial intelligence. The proposal did not pass.

Last week, DeSantis raised the issue of a possible 10-year preemption as he announced he was working with state lawmakers on AI legislation.

“That (a 10-year preemption) is basically saying, ‘Let the handful of tech companies let them drive the train, and we’re just along for the ride,’” DeSantis said during an appearance in The Villages.

DeSantis also warned that the technology could result in an “age of darkness and deceit” without adequate safeguards.

Also, Monday, DeSantis reiterated his desire for a Florida “citizens bill of rights” on AI, adding, “This will be so much worse for kids than social media if we don’t establish meaningful guardrails.”

DeSantis’ proposal envisions legislation to address issues such as protections from Chinese-created AI and deep fake videos and the impacts of huge data centers on the environment, water resources and utility bills.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

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

The post Trump says ‘One Rulebook,’ but DeSantis has objected to the possibility of the feds preempting state AI laws 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.

A legal battle over an emergency rule banning the sale and manufacture of a concentrated byproduct of kratom, known as 7-OH, is heating up in advance of an administrative hearing this week, as attorneys for the state seek years of health, employment and criminal records from men who maintain the substance has turned their lives around.

Attorney General James Uthmeier issued the rule in August prohibiting the alkaloid 7-hydroxymitragynine, known as 7-OH, and adding it to the list of the state’s most dangerous drugs, saying the ban was needed “to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.”

The substance has been sold in places such as smoke shops, and two businesses and six users filed a challenge at the Division of Administrative Hearings alleging the emergency regulation is invalid, in part, because Uthmeier’s office failed to follow proper procedures.

In the runup to a multiday hearing scheduled to start Wednesday, a clash has erupted over the privacy of the users who are part of the challenge and have been identified by initials. The wrangling is focused on whether their identities should be shielded and how much information about their backgrounds should be revealed.

Uthmeier’s attorneys have asked Administrative Law Judge Robert Cohen to require the users to identify themselves by name. A motion filed last week by the challengers, who include veterans, asked Cohen to allow the men to testify in a “confidential setting” in a courtroom closed to the public.

The “public interest does not outweigh” the men’s “right to privacy in this circumstance,” the attorneys argued, adding the 7-OH users “should not be compelled to publicly identify themselves and force them to disclose such intimate details without the protection of anonymity.”

In an order issued last week, Cohen shut down the challengers’ request.

“While the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) will not conduct ‘secret proceedings,’ members of the public attending the hearing will be warned not to disclose the names of protected individuals in any media or social media,” Cohen wrote, promising to maintain the users’ confidentiality “to the greatest extent reasonable and possible.”

Cohen’s order also addressed myriad other issues stemming from the complaint, which included lengthy histories of the users’ experiences before and after they began using 7-OH. The men said the substance helped wean them from prescription or illicit drugs and remain clean, leading to improved relationships with their families and more stable employment.

One of the most contentious issues has been Uthmeier’s office seeking information about the men’s personal, medical, professional and criminal histories, an effort the challengers’ lawyers say is “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing” and violates their constitutional right to privacy.

As an example, lawyers for the state are asking for all medical and addiction-treatment records since 2009, personnel files, interactions with law enforcement, private text messages and social media communications spanning 16 years and documented proof of the users “sobriety.”

The requests seek “irrelevant, deeply personal information, which has no bearing on whether the agency (Uthmeier’s office) followed proper rulemaking procedures,” wrote the challengers’ lawyers, who include Steve Menton of the Rutledge Escenia, P.A. firm, and Paula Savchenko.

The requests “risk stigmatizing substance-use treatment, shaming recovering individuals, inflaming emotions” and punishing the users for participating in the challenge, the users’ lawyers argued in a motion last week.

“Discovery (in legal cases) is not a license to rummage through someone’s life,” the motion said.

Cohen’s order raised questions about the sweeping nature of the administrative complaint and the state’s response to it.

The complaint “appears to delve into factual matters that go well beyond the scope of challenges set forth in administrative law,” Cohen wrote.

Cohen’s order said he expects to rule “on whether specific addictions, mental health, employment, criminal, social media, or personal communications records are relevant to the issues in a challenge to an emergency rule.”

If the judge decides such testimony is relevant, the men will be allowed to testify and be subject to cross examination, he said.

The complaint was filed on behalf of The Mystic Grove, LLC, a Florida-based company that operates two retail stores; Green Brothers Wholesale, Inc., which distributes hemp, kratom and other smoke-shop products; and six people — identified as K.T., B.M., J.E., A.G., A.R. and M.D. — who use 7-OH products.

The rule, issued on Aug. 13, went into effect immediately and is expected to remain in place for a year. Uthmeier is working with lawmakers to make the rule permanent. House and Senate bills have been filed for the legislative session that begins Jan. 13 to classify 7-OH as a Schedule 1 narcotic.

The proximity of the legislative session complicates the case because lawmakers could take action to ban the substance while the rule is in effect, Cohen indicated in Tuesday’s order.

“A successful challenge to the emergency rule at issue here could, in practical effect, be a pyrrhic one, should the proposed legislation be taken up and passed,” he wrote.

Florida in 2023 prohibited the sale of kratom, a plant whose botanical name is “mitragyna speciosa,” to people under age 21. But legislation aimed at regulating or banning sale or use altogether has not passed.

The 7-OH alkaloid is one of the kratom’s most potent active compounds. Levels of 7-OH levels are low in whole kratom leaves, while isolated or concentrated forms of the compound are much stronger and often are sold as natural or health supplements.

Uthmeier’s ban came weeks after President Donald Trump’s administration took initial steps to add 7-OH to the nation’s list of dangerous drugs as part of a broader effort to address opioid addiction.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

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

The post Kratom byproduct battle heats up in court 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.