Rejecting arguments that the law is ambiguous, the Florida Supreme Court said Thursday that peaceful protesters are not threatened by a measure that Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Legislature passed in 2021 to crack down on violent demonstrations.
DeSantis championed the law after nationwide protests following the 2020 death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. But civil-rights groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure, contending it could lead to peaceful protesters facing charges when demonstrations turn violent.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in 2021 issued a preliminary injunction against the law, describing it as unconstitutionally 鈥渧ague and overbroad.鈥�
READ MORE: Fort Lauderdale, police sued for violent 2020 attacks against protesters of George Floyd murder
The state appealed, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a somewhat-unusual step of requesting help from the Florida Supreme Court with what it called a 鈥渘ovel鈥� issue 鈥� how to determine the meaning of the word 鈥渞iot鈥� in the law.
Thursday鈥檚 main opinion disputed Walker鈥檚 conclusion that the law was ambiguous. It also agreed with DeSantis and the Jacksonville Sheriff鈥檚 Office, another defendant in the lawsuit, that a 鈥減eaceful protester, under the most natural reading of the statute, is no rioter.鈥�
鈥淎t bottom, the question is whether that law applies to a person who is present at a violent protest, but neither engages in, nor intends to assist others in engaging in, violent and disorderly conduct. And the answer is: no, it does not,鈥� said the 28-page main opinion, written by Justice John Couriel and joined by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso.
The law says that a 鈥減erson commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct鈥� that results in an injury to another person, property damage or 鈥渋mminent danger鈥� of injury or property damage.
Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a concurring opinion Thursday that agreed with the result of the main opinion 鈥� though he said he thought the law was ambiguous.
鈥淔or purposes of (the law), a narrow interpretation of 鈥榲iolent public disturbance鈥� is essential to ensure that prosecutions involving violations of the statute do not capture the peaceful, nonviolent exercise of First Amendment rights nor criminalize the mere presence at or lawful participation in an otherwise peaceful assembly or protest,鈥� Labarga wrote.
The Supreme Court ruling will go to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will use it in determining whether to overturn Walker鈥檚 preliminary injunction. The challenge to the law was filed by groups such as the Dream Defenders and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP.
In his 90-page decision, Walker pointed to concerns about vagueness of the law, which includes felony penalties.
鈥淭hough plaintiffs claim that they and their members fear that it (the law) will be used against them based on the color of their skin or the messages that they express, its vagueness permits those in power to weaponize its enforcement against any group who wishes to express any message that the government disapproves of,鈥� Walker wrote. 鈥淭hus, while there may be some Floridians who welcome the chilling effect that this law has on the plaintiffs in this case, depending on who is in power, next time it could be their ox being gored.鈥�
In Thursday鈥檚 main opinion, however, Couriel reviewed the history of Florida鈥檚 anti-riot laws and analyzed the grammar of the 2021 measure. He wrote that to get a conviction, prosecutors 鈥渕ust prove a defendant acted with intent to assist others in violent and disorderly conduct. This reading of the statute accords with the historical understanding of riot as a crime of violence 鈥� and indeed, with common sense.鈥�
While attorneys for the civil-rights groups have argued the law violates First Amendment rights, they also asked the Supreme Court to narrowly interpret it to ensure peaceful protesters would not be affected.
鈥淎lthough (as the district court held) the statute鈥檚 plain text is most naturally read to encompass non-violent protected speech, it is also fairly possible to construe the text narrowly to maintain the pre-existing common-law definition and avoid encroaching upon constitutionally protected expression,鈥� the groups鈥� attorneys wrote in a brief last year.
