Saying the restrictions don鈥檛 implicate speech, a sharply divided appeals-court panel has put on hold a judge鈥檚 ruling that blocked parts of a law prohibiting non-Florida residents and non-U.S. citizens from collecting signatures for ballot proposals.
Republican legislators included the restrictions, backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, in a sweeping election law passed this spring after proposed constitutional amendments seeking to allow recreational marijuana and guarantee abortion rights narrowly failed to pass in November.
Florida Decides Healthcare, a political committee sponsoring a ballot measure aimed at expanding Medicaid coverage, filed a federal lawsuit in May, in part alleging the restrictions against non-citizens and non-Florida residents violate constitutionally protected political speech. Smart & Safe Florida, the committee behind the recreational marijuana proposal, also is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in July issued a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions on who can collect and deliver signed petitions, saying it went too far in limiting the committees鈥� activities.
But in a 2-1 decision Tuesday siding with DeSantis鈥� administration, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state 鈥渕ade a strong showing鈥� that the law (HB 1205) did not violate the First Amendment. It issued a stay of Walker鈥檚 ruling, which effectively will allow the law to be enforced while the legal battle continues.
The residency and citizenship requirements 鈥渄o not restrict any speech elements of the petition-circulation process,鈥� Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Elizabeth Branch. Judge Nancy Abudu dissented.
The law limits collection of signed petitions but doesn鈥檛 bar noncitizens or nonresidents from distributing blank forms or 鈥渙therwise engaging鈥� with voters about ballot measures, Lagoa wrote, echoing arguments made by the state.
鈥淎nd nothing in HB 1205 limits a nonresident or noncitizen from speaking to and attempting
to persuade a Florida voter on any political issue whatsoever,鈥� Lagoa, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, wrote.
Under the law, groups that 鈥渒nowingly鈥� violate the restriction on non-U.S. citizens and non-Florida residents could face $50,000 fines and other sanctions. Petitions delivered by such people would have to be scrapped.
Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the decision blocking Walker鈥檚 ruling.
鈥淣either Californians nor Colombians have a right to collect petitions from Floridians who wish to change the Florida Constitution. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and put a stop to a district court that tried to legislate from the bench. Big win for our Constitution!鈥� Uthmeier said in a post on X.
READ MORE: Campaign groups urge judge to further limit new restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
In a sharply worded 20-page dissenting opinion, Abudu accused the majority of being out-of-line with previous court decisions and 鈥渂ringing more attention鈥� to the appeals court 鈥渁s an outlier鈥� and 鈥渋nviting the Supreme Court鈥� to reverse Tuesday鈥檚 decision.
鈥淪o, too, is the ongoing habit of disingenuously parsing Supreme Court precedent to accommodate a state鈥檚 unconstitutional legislative whims,鈥� Abudu wrote.
Walker鈥檚 鈥渇actual findings鈥� about the 鈥減ractical impact鈥� of the restrictions, the law鈥檚 鈥渓egal insufficiency and the concrete harms it causes are due deference,鈥� she added.
Abudu characterized the noncitizen and nonresident restrictions as a 鈥渟weeping bar on political participation" and called the state鈥檚 defense of the law 鈥渁 drastic departure from First Amendment case law鈥� that 鈥渧iolates the foundational principles upon which the amendment rests.鈥�
If the law is upheld, 鈥淔lorida can now criminalize any expressive activity it chooses on the ground that it is the 鈥榗onduct鈥� portion and not the 鈥榮peech鈥� it is targeting,鈥� Abudu wrote.
Taking aim at Abudu鈥檚 dissent, the majority opinion said 鈥渢he law does not sweep into any aspects of the (petition) circulation process that actually implicate 鈥榯he exchange of ideas about political change,鈥欌�� referring to a ruling in a case known as Biddulph v. Mortham.
鈥淭hose attempts to persuade a Florida voter occur before 鈥� not after 鈥� the voter decides to sign a petition form,鈥� Lagoa wrote.
Lawyers for the DeSantis administration have contended that the restriction on out-of-state residents and non-U.S. citizens handling signed petitions was necessary to alleviate difficulties in investigating potential fraud. The state relied heavily on a report conducted by the Office of Elections Crimes and Security that found instances of wrongdoing related to the 2024 ballot initiatives.
Backers of the Medicaid ballot initiative called Tuesday鈥檚 ruling disappointing but predicted the law would ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.
鈥淏y dismissing the First Amendment concerns at stake, the court ignored clear precedent and the fact that HB 1205 bans entire classes of people from engaging in the core political speech of citizen-led campaigns,鈥� Mitch Emerson, executive director of Florida Decides Healthcare, said in an email.
Groups challenging the law told Walker that the restrictions will severely hamper their ability to gather the required 880,000 valid signatures by Feb. 1 for placement on the 2026 ballot. Smart & Safe Florida, for example, has fired hundreds of out-of-state workers as it seeks to put a revised recreational-pot proposal on the ballot.
Other plaintiffs in the case include backers of an initiative seeking to protect the right to clean water; Poder Latinx, a group which represents Hispanic voters and their communities; and the League of Women Voters of Florida.
Tuesday鈥檚 majority opinion and the dissent brought into sharp focus a sometimes-acrimonious divide between judges appointed to the conservative-leaning 11th Circuit by President Donald Trump 鈥� including Lagoa and Branch 鈥� and those, such as Abudu, placed on the bench by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic presidents.
Abudu鈥檚 dissent criticized a finding by Lagoa and Branch that Walker 鈥渁bused (his) discretion鈥� by issuing the preliminary injunction. An appellate court鈥檚 review 鈥渋s very deferential鈥� to a judge who issued a ruling, she wrote.
