IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc., 

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc., and 

Hope CommUnity Center, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Ronald D. DeSantis, in his official capacity as 

Governor of the State of Florida; and Jared 

W. Perdue, in his official capacity as the

Secretary of the Florida Department of

Transportation,

 Defendants. 

 Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-23927

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the executive of one state infringing upon the federal government’s 

immigration system by creating a separate, parallel immigration system. Florida’s attempts to 

create its own immigration system came to a head on September 14, 2022, when individuals acting 

at the direction of Defendants sowed chaos and confusion by fraudulently inducing approximately 

50 Venezuelan and Peruvian migrants, all of whom had been processed into the U.S. by

immigration authorities, into taking a flight from Texas to Massachusetts, falsely promising them 

aid, jobs, and more. There was no aid. Indeed, no one in Massachusetts knew they would be 

arriving. But the Governor of Florida did, and he took credit for the stunt the next day. He proudly

explained that he had funded this scheme through a section of the 2022 Florida appropriations act 

that set aside $12 million for the “relocation” of “unauthorized aliens” using monies derived from 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 1 of 28
2

federal funds intended to combat a deadly pandemic. And he has vowed to use “every penny” of 

those $12 million to continue this unconstitutional scheme. This case is about that section of the 

Florida appropriations act, which violates the Supremacy Clause by usurping the federal 

government’s sole role in regulating and enforcing immigration law, muddying an already 

complex area of law, leading to chaos and confusion; and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 

Protection Clause, through its state-sponsored harassment of immigrants based on race, color, and 

national origin. 

Plaintiffs, organizations who have been harmed by the passage and enforcement of the 

unconstitutional section of the appropriations act, seek an Order enjoining Defendants from further 

implementing Section 185 of House Bill 5001: General Appropriations Act (“Section 185”) and a 

declaratory judgment that Section 185 is unconstitutional. 

PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiffs are three nonprofit organizations that support immigrants and immigrant 

communities in Florida.

2. Plaintiff Florida Immigrant Coalition (“FLIC”) is a nonprofit corporation, duly 

organized under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami, 

Florida. 

3. FLIC is a statewide coalition of more than 65 member organizations and over 100 

allies, founded in 1998 and formally incorporated in 2004. FLIC’s staff cover six counties 

throughout Florida and FLIC’s member organizations are located in over 20 Florida counties. 

FLIC’s mission is to grow the connection, consciousness, and capacity of immigrant families, 

organizations, and communities so that everyone can live, love, and labor in Florida without fear. 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 2 of 28
3

FLIC conducts local, state, and national campaigns to shape representative and accountable 

governance. 

4. For example, FLIC’s campaigns include We Are Florida – Civic Engagement, 

Driver’s Licenses for All, We Are All America – Refugee Campaign, From the Root, Climate 

Justice, Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals and The 

Dream Act, and the Federal Campaign for Immigration Relief. 

5. FLIC supports citizens and immigrants that have various immigration statuses, 

including, for example, undocumented immigrants and those with TPS, refugees, persons seeking 

asylum, Lawful Permanent Residents, temporary visitors, and others. FLIC also operates a tollfree hotline that provides information to immigrant communities, allies, and concerned 

stakeholders as it relates to citizenship, access to college, detention and deportation, and other 

basic social needs.

6. Plaintiff Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. (“AI Justice”) is a nonprofit 

corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida. 

7. AI Justice is an award-winning nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that 

protects and promotes the basic human rights of immigrants. AI Justice’s mission is to protect and 

promote the basic human rights of immigrants through a unique combination of free direct 

services, impact litigation, policy reform, and public education at local, state, and national levels.

8. In Florida and nationally, AI Justice champions the rights of unaccompanied 

immigrant children, advocates for survivors of trafficking, crime, and domestic violence, serves as 

a watchdog on immigration detention practices and policies, fights to keep families informed, 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 3 of 28
4

empowered, and together, and pursues redress on behalf of immigrant groups with particular and 

compelling claims to justice. 

9. Since its founding in 1996, AI Justice has served more than 145,000 individuals 

from 160 countries and has represented numerous individuals in their pursuit of lawful 

immigration status, including individuals subject to so-called immigration detainers. AI Justice 

also represents clients challenging their confinement and/or conditions of confinement due to 

detention resulting from federal immigration violations.

10. AI Justice also produces reports which detail evidence of civil liberty violations, 

testifies before Congress, and files lawsuits that challenge state and national laws.

11. Plaintiff Hope CommUnity Center, Inc. (“Hope CommUnity Center”) is a 

nonprofit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida and its principal place 

of business in Apopka, Florida. 

12. Hope CommUnity Center is a community-based and service-learning organization

dedicated to the empowerment of Central Florida’s immigrant community.

13. Hope CommUnity Center’s mission is to foster diverse, empowered, learning 

communities engaged in personal and societal transformation. Through service and advocacy, they 

stand together with immigrants and others who are tenacious and courageous in the face of all 

systems of oppression. Its vision is to be the premier center of hope and empowerment for central 

Florida’s immigrant community and all who face any system of oppression. 

14. Hope CommUnity Center serves approximately 6,500 people each year in Lake, 

Orange, Seminole, Volusia, and Osceola counties. Many of the families with whom Hope 

CommUnity Center works are of mixed immigration status, having at least one family member 

who is undocumented, including some who are subject to immigration detainers. 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 4 of 28
5

15. Hope CommUnity Center’s programs and services include immigration, education, 

service learning, community organizing, and youth and families.

B. Defendants

16. Defendant Ronald D. DeSantis (“Governor DeSantis”) is the Governor of the 

State of Florida. He has publicly confirmed that the $12 million in funding set aside by Section 

185 will continue to be used to unlawfully “relocate” people that Florida deems to be 

“unauthorized aliens” according to Florida’s unique and incongruent definition of the term 

“unauthorized alien,” a definition that is ambiguous and in conflict with federal law. Defendant

Governor DeSantis is sued in his official capacity. 

17. Defendant Jared W. Perdue (“Secretary Perdue”) is the Secretary of the Florida 

Department of Transportation. The funds set aside in Section 185 were appropriated to the Florida 

Department of Transportation to implement the relocation program. Defendant Secretary Perdue 

is sued in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331, because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, and 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of 

state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those 

rights.

19. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 

and 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 5 of 28
6

20. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, or will 

occur, in this District and a substantial number of Plaintiffs are located in this District.

21. Defendants, sued in their official capacities, both reside within the state of Florida.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. In order to challenge and rewrite federal immigration law and policy, Governor 

DeSantis has implemented a separate, competing, and conflicting immigration law and policy

scheme at the state level through lawsuits, state policies, legislation, and executive orders.

A. Legislative History of Section 185

23. On December 10, 2021, Governor DeSantis gave a press conference at the 

Jacksonville International Airport, where he announced his priority to take new actions to address 

immigration.1 During the press conference, Governor DeSantis announced that his administration

“put out a very strong budget yesterday”2 and said his office would be “proposing a series of 

legislative reforms” to address immigration and “the Biden border crisis.”3 He added that “[i]n 

yesterday’s budget, I put in $8 million for us to be able to transport people illegally out of the state 

of Florida,” and floated the idea of relocating immigrants to “Martha’s Vineyard or some of these 

places.”4

 

24. On or about February 10, 2022, the Florida House of Representatives introduced 

Florida House Bill 5001, the “General Appropriations Act” (“HB 5001”) for Fiscal Year 2023.

5

 

1 See The Hill, JUST IN: DeSantis Unveils New Actions to Combat ‘Immigration Failures’, 

YouTube (Dec. 10, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqIsmv6LHpc. 2 Id. at 0:40-0:43. 3 Id. at 6:03-6:15. 4 Id. at 9:00-9:20. 5 See Bill History: HB 5001 (2022) – General Appropriations Act, Florida House of 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 6 of 28
7

The original version of HB 5001 did not contain Section 185 or any appropriation for Governor 

DeSantis’ “relocation program.”6 A few days earlier, on February 4, 2022, the Florida State Senate 

had introduced its appropriations bill, SB 2500.

7

 SB 2500 also did not include any provision 

allocating funds to a “relocation program,” and it was ultimately substituted for the Florida House 

of Representatives appropriations bill, HB 5001.8

25. HB 5001 was first introduced by State Representative Jay Trumbull on the Florida 

House Floor on February 10, 2022.9 On February 15, 2022, State Representative Kelly Skidmore

offered Amendment 990001, which did not add any provisions relating to the “relocation 

program.”10 The amendment was withdrawn, and HB 5001 was placed for a third reading.11 On 

February 16, 2022, the original iteration of HB 5001 passed the Florida House of Representatives 

and was certified to the Florida Senate.12

26. On February 17, 2022, State Senator Kelli Stargel proposed Amendment 889818, 

which proposed a new draft appropriations bill.13 This draft of HB 5001 also did not include any 

Representatives, https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76661

(last visited December 1, 2022); see also Fla. H.R. Journal 610 (Reg. Sess. 2022). 6 See H.R. 5001, 2022 Leg., 124th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022). 7 See Bill History: SB 2500: Appropriations, The Florida Senate, 

https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/2500/?Tab=BillHistory (last visited Dec. 1, 2022).

8 Id.

9 Fla. H.R. Journal 610 (Reg. Sess. 2022).

10 H.R. 2022-990001, 124th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022). 11 Fla. H.R. Journal 623–24 (Reg. Sess. 2022); see also Bill History: HB 5001 (2022) – General 

Appropriations Act, Florida House of Representatives, 

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76661. 12 Fla. H.R. Journal 656 (Reg. Sess. 2022). 13 See S. 2022-889818, 124th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022); Amendments: HB 5001: General 

Appropriations Act, The Florida Senate, 

https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/5001/?Tab=Amendments (last visited Dec. 1, 2022). 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 7 of 28
8

provision that allocated funds for Governor DeSantis’ “relocation program.”14 The Florida Senate 

referred HB 5001, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations.15 

27. On or about March 10, 2022, the Florida House of Representatives Conference 

Committee amended the General Appropriations Act, adding Section 185, which appropriated $12 

million to the Florida Department of Transportation to contract with common carriers to transport 

people deemed to be “unauthorized aliens” out of the state of Florida.16

28. In its entirety, Section 185 provides as follows: 

From the interest earnings associated with the federal Coronavirus 

State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Public Law 117-2), the nonrecurring 

sum of $12,000,000 from the General Revenue Fund is appropriated 

to the Department of Transportation for Fiscal Year 2021-2022, for 

implementing a program to facilitate the transport of unauthorized 

aliens from this state consistent with federal law. The department 

may, upon the receipt of at least two quotes, negotiate and enter into 

contracts with private parties, including common carriers, to 

implement the program. The department may enter into agreements 

with any applicable federal agency to implement the program. The 

term “unauthorized alien” means a person who is unlawfully present 

in the United States according to the terms of the federal 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. ss. 1101 et seq. The term 

shall be interpreted consistently with any applicable federal statutes, 

rules, or regulations. The unexpended balance of funds appropriated 

to the department in this section remaining as of June 30, 2022, shall 

revert and is appropriated for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 to the 

department for the same purpose. This section shall take effect upon 

becoming a law.

FL LEGIS 2022-156, 2022 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2022-156 (H.B. 5001).

14 See Amendment 889818, The Florida Senate, 

https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/5001/Amendment/889818/PDF. 15 Fla. S. Journal 427–28 (Reg. Sess. 2022).

16 See H. Appropriations Comm., 2022-447649, 124th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022); Appropriations 

Committee, Conference Committee Amendment 447649, 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/5001/Amendment/447649/HTML (last visited Dec. 

1, 2022). 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 8 of 28
9

29. A mere four days later, on March 14, 2022, the Florida House of Representatives 

passed HB 5001, as amended by the Conference Committee Report, which included Section 185.17

That same day, the Conference Committee Report on HB 5001, with Section 185, also passed the 

Florida Senate.18

30. Departing from the normal legislative procedural sequence, the aberrant timing of 

this process effectively eliminated any opportunity for the Florida Legislature to robustly debate 

Section 185. 

31. Section 185 was included in the state’s appropriations act despite Article III, 

Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which mandates that “[l]aws making appropriations for 

salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the state shall contain provisions on no 

other subject.” An appropriations act is not the proper place for the enactment of general public 

policies on matters other than appropriations. Yet, in violation of Article III, Section 12 of the 

Florida Constitution, Section 185 establishes substantive policy, not salaries or other current 

expenses of the state. As such, the “relocation program” contemplated by Section 185 should have 

been scrutinized through the legislative process applicable to substantive legislation, not slipped 

into the annual appropriations act

32. HB 5001, including Section 185, was presented to Governor DeSantis on June 2, 

2022, who approved it that same day.19 

17 Fla. H.R. Journal 1216, 1425 (Reg. Sess. 2022).

18 Fla. S. Journal 1174, 1176–77 (Reg. Sess. 2022).

19 Bill History: HB 5001: General Appropriations Act, The Florida Senate, 

https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/5001/?Tab=BillHistory (last visited Dec. 1, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 9 of 28
10

B. Implementation of Section 185

33. Since the passage of Section 185, Defendants Governor DeSantis and Secretary 

Perdue have taken direct action to implement Section 185 by transporting asylum seekers from 

Texas to Massachusetts. 

34. Even before putting his “relocation program” into effect, Governor DeSantis and

his administration threatened immigrant communities with its implementation. On August 18, 

2022, Florida Lieutenant Governor Jeanette M. Nuñez stated that Governor DeSantis had worked 

with the legislature to secure funds to send Cuban migrants, “very frankly, to the state of Delaware, 

the state of the President.”20

35. During this time, the Florida Department of Transportation was also developing 

guidelines for the “relocation program” created by Section 185 and seeking proposals from 

transportation companies to transport noncitizens out of Florida. The Florida Department of 

Transportation’s request for such proposals includes four deliverables: “Deliverable 1 - Establish 

procedure to receive requests from partner agencies; Deliverable 2 - Establish procedure for 

determining eligibility for relocation; Deliverable 3 - Provide transportation and all ancillary 

services; Deliverable 4 - Provide reports.”21

36. On September 14, 2022, Governor DeSantis launched his “relocation program,” 

contracting private planes to transport approximately 50 immigrants from San Antonio, Texas, to 

20 See Bianca Padró Ocasio, Did Florida’s Lieutenant Governor Say “Illegal” Cuban Migrants 

Will Be Sent to Delaware?, Tampa Bay Times (Aug. 22, 2022), 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/08/22/did-floridas-lieutenant-governorsay-illegal-cuban-migrants-will-be-sent-to-delaware.

21 See Grant Stern, Florida Governor’s Contract to Transport Immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard 

Eliminated Key Safeguards, Chose High Bidder, The Stern Facts (Oct. 7, 2022), 

https://grantstern.substack.com/p/florida-governors-contract-to-transport.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 10 of 28
11

Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, and, upon information and belief, doing so without notification 

to any Massachusetts state or local officials.22

37. In the days leading up to September 14, 2022, an agent of the Florida Department 

of Transportation, known as “Perla,” reportedly introduced herself to individual families near a 

migrant shelter in San Antonio and handed out gift cards.23 “Perla” also told migrants that she 

was offering a free flight to large cities in the Northeast, where they would receive all manner of 

assistance that she knew did not exist.

24

38. Instead, the migrants were tricked into boarding a plane through false promises and 

were dropped off at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport.

25

39. On September 15, 2022, the day after the migrants were abandoned in Martha’s 

Vineyard, Governor DeSantis issued a statement to the press taking credit for sending the migrants 

to Martha’s Vineyard and publicly stated that the transportation was conducted pursuant to Section 

185:

Florida can confirm the two planes with illegal immigrants that

arrived in Martha’s Vineyard today were part of the state’s

relocation program to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary

destinations. States like Massachusetts, New York, and California

will better facilitate the care of these individuals who they have

invited into our country by incentivizing illegal immigration through

their designation as “sanctuary states” and support for the Biden

Administration’s open border policies.

22 See Jessica Chasmar, Ron DeSantis Sends Two Planes of Illegal Immigrants to Martha’s 

Vineyard, Fox News (Sept. 14, 2022), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-desantis-sends-twoplanes-illegal-immigrants-marthas-vineyard. 23 See Miriam Jordan, Remy Tumin, “I Ended Up on This Little Island”: Migrants Land in 

Political Drama, N.Y. Times (Sept. 15, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/us/marthasvineyard-venezuela-migrants.html. 24 See id.

25 See id.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 11 of 28
12

As you know, in this past legislative session the Florida Legislature

appropriated $12 million to implement a program to facilitate the

transport of illegal immigrants from this state consistent with federal

law.

Florida’s immigration relocation program both targets human

smugglers found in Florida and preempts others from entering.26

40. There is not one scintilla of evidence—not in the legislation itself, not in the 

requests for bids, not in the Florida Department of Transportation policies—suggesting that 

Section 185 in any way “targets human smugglers” or that the individuals coerced onto the plane 

in Texas were or had any connection to “human smugglers.”

41. On the same day, Governor DeSantis told reporters that he intends to use “every 

penny” of the $12 million Florida budgeted for the “relocation” of immigrants, clarifying that 

“these are just the beginning efforts” and that they “got an infrastructure in place now” and “there’s 

going to be a lot more that’s happening.”27 A month later, Governor DeSantis’ staff confirmed that 

“the immigration relocation program remains active.”28

C. Governor DeSantis has consistently targeted immigrants of Latin American descent 

42. Section 185 is only one in a litany of actions Governor DeSantis and his 

administration have taken to target immigrants. Governor DeSantis has undertaken multiple 

26 See Heather Morrison, Read Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Statement on Immigrants Sent to 

Martha’s Vineyard, Mass Live (Sept. 15, 2022), https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/09/readflorida-gov-ron-desantis-statement-on-immigrants-sent-to-marthasvineyard.html?outputType=amp. 27 See e.g., Steve Contorno, DeSantis Vows Florida Will Transport More Migrants From Border 

to Other States, CNN (Sept. 16, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/desantismarthas-vineyard-migrants/index.html. 28 Associated Press, DeSantis Continuing Migrant Flights to Delaware, Other Democratic States, 

Delaware Online (Oct. 17, 2022), 

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/nation/2022/10/17/desantis-continuing-migrantflights-to-delaware-democratic-states/69567961007.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 12 of 28
13

actions targeting immigrants by challenging federal immigration policies that would provide 

immigrants with dignity, due process, or protection, and is now attempting to implement his own 

system of competing immigration laws and policies at the state level. 

43. For example, Governor DeSantis, through the State of Florida, has twice sued the 

United States and federal government officials over their perceived failure to comply with 

immigration law and control the U.S.-Mexico Border.29 

44. Unable to obtain a court ruling to directly affect federal immigration policies, in 

September 2021, Governor DeSantis signed Executive Order 21-223, titled “Biden Border Crisis,” 

wherein he directed Florida state agencies to address federal policies and actions concerning 

immigration and prohibited all Florida agencies under the purview of the Governor from 

“facilitating illegal immigration into Florida.”30 

45. Governor DeSantis was also the driving force behind the now infamous “antisanctuary cities” law (SB 168), which impermissibly authorized and required the state and local 

law enforcement to perform the functions of federal immigration agents.31

46. Finally, Governor DeSantis also pushed for the passage of SB 1808, yet another 

encroachment into federal immigration policy and procedure. SB 1808 broadens the definition of

29 See, e.g., Florida v. United States, 540 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (M.D. Fla. 2021), vacated, No. 21-

11715, 2021 WL 5910702 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2021); Florida v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-01066, 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Dk. 1] (N.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2021).

30 Office of the Governor, Exec. Order No. 21-233 (Sept. 28, 2021), https://www.flgov.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/EO_21-223.pdf; Press Release, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Governor Ron 

DeSantis Takes Action to Protect Floridians from the Dangerous Impacts of the Biden Border 

Crisis (Sept. 28, 2021), https://www.flgov.com/2021/09/28/governor-ron-desantis-takes-actionto-protect-floridians-from-the-dangerous-impacts-of-the-biden-border-crisis. 31 See City of South Miami v. DeSantis, 561 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (finding certain 

sections of SB 168 unconstitutional, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause 

by having a disparate impact on immigrant communities). Florida appealed the court’s decision 

to the U.S .Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. City of South Miami v. Florida, No. 21-

13657 (11th Cir.).

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 13 of 28
14

“sanctuary policy” previously incorporated into SB 168, requires all law enforcement agencies 

operating county detention facilities to enter into a cooperation agreement with the federal 

government pursuant to INA § 287(g), and prohibits all state and local government agency 

contracts with transportation companies, including private businesses, from “willfully” 

transporting an “unauthorized alien” into Florida. 

D. Defendants’ “relocation program” has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiffs

47. The enactment of Section 185 has caused direct injury to each of the Plaintiffs. The 

organizational resources and staff members of each organization have been strained as they work 

to answer the questions of their clients and members who have been impacted by the passage and 

implementation of Section 185. Each of the organizations are now diverting resources away from 

their normal day-to-day campaigns and programs to deal with the fallout of Section 185.

48. For example, FLIC’s services, organizing, civic engagement, executive leadership, 

communications, and administration teams have all experienced a significant increase in workload

since the passage of Section 185, and FLIC has had to change the way it manages its informational 

hotline to address the ways in which Section 185 may be implemented in Florida. As a result, less 

staff time and fewer resources can be given to its other programs and initiatives.

49. FLIC’s communications department has had to mobilize all of its staff to respond 

to the passage and implementation of Section 185 throughout the state. From digital means of 

sharing information to responding to an onslaught of press and community requests when the news

of the Martha’s Vineyard flight broke, the entire communications team has had to move rapidly, 

including in areas outside of their normal job descriptions and duties. All other critical 

communications work, including electoral work, was put on hold by all members of the 

communications team for a substantial amount of time.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 14 of 28
15

50. FLIC’s staff time and resources have been diverted to responding to questions 

related to the interpretation and implementation of Section 185, including how to avoid being 

targeted by Florida’s “relocation program.”

51. The diversion of resources has resulted in a reduction of time spent on FLIC’s core 

work and programs and has taken time from existing priorities for FLIC’s other programs and 

initiatives, such as TPS advocacy and assistance, naturalization clinics, deferred action for child 

arrivals, family separation, hurricane preparedness and recovery, mutual aid, basic organizing, and 

core education programs. 

52. FLIC will be forced to continue diverting its resources from its communications, 

organizing, services, fundraising, and development departments, as well as its other programs, to 

address issues relating to Section 185. These limitations will hinder FLIC’s future ability to 

respond and provide support to its members and the immigrant communities they serve.

53. Similarly, AI Justice has experienced an increase in telephone calls for legal 

information and services from clients and potential clients who are concerned about their and/or 

family members’ possible transportation out of Florida by state officials. To address the need for 

legal information, counsel and advice in response to Section 185, AI Justice has created Know 

Your Rights content, provided technical assistance to community-based partner organizations and 

civic leaders, created preparedness plans for clients and prospective clients who are at-risk of harm 

based upon Section 185’s implementation, and invested time and resources distributing legal 

information to the community concerning Section 185.

54. This work has significantly diverted AI Justice resources agency wide. Advocates 

who staff AI Justice phone lines have observed an overall increase in telephone calls, which has 

decreased AI Justice’s ability to answer other inquiries. As a result, individuals calling AI Justice 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 15 of 28
16

to secure legal assistance for other reasons—including survivors of crime, human trafficking, and 

domestic violence—have been unable to make contact with AI Justice staff to request legal 

services through AI Justice telephone lines. AI Justice’s communications team has been tasked 

with creating and distributing information to increase community awareness regarding the 

implementation of Section 185. AI Justice supervisory staff have provided internal guidance to 

staff regarding the implications of Section 185 to ensure that they are empowered to provide 

accurate information to AI Justice clients and the community-at-large. Staff at every level of the 

organization have devoted considerable time and resources responding to questions from social 

and legal service providers on the implications of Section 185 and how to best support and serve 

affected individuals. 

55. Additionally, AI Justice has dedicated significant resources in evaluating Section 

185 and to respond to inquiries from clients and the community because the implementation of 

Section 185, and to whom it will be applied, is so unclear. This effort has required communicating 

with nonprofit providers and civic society leaders in Texas, Florida, and Massachusetts to 

determine how Section 185 has been applied and its implications for AI Justice clients, family 

members of AI Justice clients, and the community at-large.

56. AI Justice anticipates increased legal services needs on behalf of clients who may 

be arrested or detained to facilitate their relocation out of Florida pursuant to Section 185.

57. Since the passage and implementation of Section 185, Hope CommUnity Center 

has also diverted resources from its programs to address Section 185. Hope CommUnity Center’s 

additional resources, staff time, and funds will continue to be diverted from its other programs and 

services such as child education, family educational services, service learning, community 

organizing, and family work. Specifically, Hope CommUnity Center has, and anticipates that it 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 16 of 28
17

will continue, to divert more staff time to creating circles of protection for the immigrant 

community in Apopka by providing information and education regarding their rights and the 

implications of Section 185. Hope CommUnity Center has spent significant resources researching 

the manner in which the State of Florida would proceed with transporting persons out of the State 

of Florida as Defendants continue to implement Section 185. 

58. Hope CommUnity Center is also responding to an increase in members’ needs 

arising from the fear of being targeted for transportation out of the State of Florida pursuant to 

Section 185. 

59. Defendants’ actions have forced each of the Plaintiffs to divert resources from their 

other programs to address issues related to Section 185, and this harm will continue unless and 

until Section 185 is correctly ruled unconstitutional. 

E. Defendants’ “Relocation Program” Conflicts with the Structure and Terms of the 

Federal Immigration System

60. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended, is the primary statute 

that governs immigration law. It defines the rights of noncitizens and dictates who is a United 

States citizen by birth or acquisition. The statutory scheme is commonly deemed second only to 

the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.32

61. The responsibility for carrying out our nation’s immigration laws lies with the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Within the DHS, the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 

carry out immigration enforcement functions proximate to the border and within the interior of the 

32 See Castro-O’Ryan v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigr. & Naturalization, 847 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 

1987) (“With only a small degree of hyperbole, the immigration laws have been termed ‘second 

only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.’ A lawyer is often the only person who could 

thread the labyrinth.” (quoting E. Hull, Without Justice For All 107 (1985)).

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 17 of 28
18

country, respectively. DHS’s Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is 

responsible for the granting of citizenship and immigration benefits. 

62. Due to the nature of immigration law and the various forms of immigration relief a 

noncitizen may be eligible for, certain noncitizens may be “authorized” to be in the United States 

even though they do not have lawful immigration status. For example, individuals who are 

released from detention on their own recognizance or permitted to enter the United States pursuant 

to a grant of parole may not have legal status but are “authorized” to be in the United States. See 

INA §§ 236(a), 212(d)(5)(A). Similarly, individuals in pending removal proceedings who have 

been issued a notice to appear—such as the individuals who were victims of Defendants’ Martha’s 

Vineyard stunt—as well as individuals with pending interviews with USCIS, are “authorized” to 

be in the United States although they commonly do not have lawful immigration status. 

63. In order to implement the complex set of federal law and regulations that govern 

immigration policy, the federal government provides extensive specialized training to DHS 

officers and agents who are tasked with determining, under the direct supervision and guidance of 

DHS attorneys, whether the individuals they encounter have legal authority to enter or remain in 

the United States and whether individuals who apply for immigration benefits are eligible to 

receive them. 

64. When an immigration officer or agent believes that an individual lacks authority to 

enter or remain in the United States, they initiate removal proceedings before the Immigration 

Court or Asylum Office as required by the INA. After an initial decision regarding an individual’s 

removability is made by the immigration judge or an asylum officer, the decision is subject to 

appeal. Appellate rights most commonly include the right to appeal to the Board of Immigration 

Appeals and subsequently, to a federal Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 18 of 28
19

65. The federal government also has a vast system to ensure enforcement of federal 

immigration law and, when appropriate, to execute orders of removal. Noncitizens, depending on 

their immigration status and whether they are in any immigration proceedings, are subject to 

certain restrictions in their travel and must avail themselves of certain mandatory processes within 

the United States. Noncitizens must frequently appear before an immigration judge or officer at 

locations designated by DHS or the Immigration Court at days and times determined by the federal 

government. Deportation officers monitor the location of noncitizens with GPS technology 

through ankle monitor devices and “SmartLINK” applications. When noncitizens fail to reside at 

the address approved by ICE, travel outside of a pre-determined ICE-approved geographic area, 

or fail to appear before an immigration judge or officer, they are flagged for ICE and may be 

subject to deportation. 

66. This coordinated national system of tracking and processing noncitizens in 

proceedings before DHS or the Immigration Court is upended and thrown into chaos when 

individuals who are required to appear before a federal agency in one location are unable to do so 

due to state intervention. Thus, Defendants interfere with the regular enforcement of immigration 

law when they transport someone out of Florida. This interference is uniquely egregious given the 

lack of any federal immigration law training or oversight provided to employees of the Florida 

Department of Transportation and its contractors, all of whom are ill-equipped to determine who

has legal authority to remain in the United States or even assess who, though foreign-born, is a 

United States citizen or is otherwise authorized to be present in the United States. 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 19 of 28
20

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants

Section 185 Violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

67. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs and, by reference, incorporate them by 

reference as though fully set forth herein.

68. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the 

Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the 

“supreme law of the land.” U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl 2. The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal 

law preempts state law and policy in any area that is constitutionally reserved to the federal 

government, over which Congress has impliedly reserved exclusive authority where state law or 

policy conflicts or interferes with federal law. 

69. The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled and federal 

governance of immigration and noncitizen status is extensive and complex. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et 

seq.; see Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395–96 (2012). 

70. The power to determine who should and should not be admitted into the country 

has long been recognized as an exclusively federal power. See Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185

U.S. 296, 302 (1902); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 706–07 (1893). The power 

to exclude and the related federal power to grant permission to remain “exist as inherently 

inseparable from the conception of nationality.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 

U.S. 304, 318 (1936). This is so because the federal government “is entrusted with full and 

exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties,” which includes the 

field of immigration. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 62–63 (1941).

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 20 of 28
21

71. The Constitution grants the federal government the power to “establish a uniform 

Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign 

Nations, and among the several states,” id., cl. 3. Courts have consistently seen the clear intention 

of Congress to provide a regulatory scheme of immigration law so pervasive that it occupies the 

field in this area of law and that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Accordingly, 

efforts such as Defendants’ to supplant federal immigration law with state policy are held 

unconstitutional. 

72. Section 185 impermissibly attempts to implement its own classification and/or 

characterization of immigration status, by providing an incoherent definition of the term 

“unauthorized alien.” 

73. Section 185 then impermissibly attempts to authorize the Florida Department of 

Transportation to determine a person’s immigration status based on Section 185’s incoherent 

definition of “unauthorized alien”— a definition that does not comport with the federal legislative 

or regulatory scheme, including the INA.

74. Section 185 defines “unauthorized alien” as “a person who is unlawfully present in 

the United States according to the terms of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1101 et seq.,”—a cite to the entire INA.

75. By incorporating all of federal immigration law by reference, Section 185 will 

require the Florida Department of Transportation (or the private companies the Florida Department 

of Transportation contracts with) and travelers to determine the incredibly complex nuances of 

immigration status and proceedings under the entire INA. An impossible task, and, in fact, a task 

uniquely in the purview of the federal government. 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 21 of 28
22

76. Section 185 constitutes a rewriting of national immigration policy. Here is how 

Governor DeSantis explained this section of the budget:

In yesterday’s budget, I put in eight million dollars for us to be able 

to transport people here illegally out of the State of Florida, now we 

had mentioned, I said, you know, it’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 

but it is true, if you sent them to Delaware or Martha’s Vineyard or 

some of these places, that border would be secure the next day.33

77. Passing over Governor DeSantis’slip of the tongue admission that his plan involves 

“transport[ing] people illegally,” it is clear that the aim of Section 185 is a purported effort to 

“secure the border.”34

78. Governor DeSantis, however, is not empowered to secure the U.S.-Mexico border 

or determine who is allowed to pass through it. That power rests with Congress, and Congress has 

passed extensive legislation on this topic. 

79. Where Defendants intend to transport persons already engaged in the federal 

immigration process, and then in-fact did transport persons engaged in the federal immigration 

process, Florida will and has already directly created chaos in the achievement of Congress’ 

objectives. Consider the chaos which would ensue if every state had attempted transport to another 

state those it deems to be “unauthorized aliens.”

80. The framework enacted by Congress leads to the conclusion here, as it has in prior 

Supreme Court jurisprudence, that immigration is an occupied field. Though dressed as a state 

budget item, Section 185 is an effort to backhandedly control national immigration, and, as such,

it is unconstitutional. 

33 See supra note 1. 34 See id.

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 22 of 28
23

COUNT II

All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants

Section 185 Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs and, by reference, incorporate them by 

reference as though fully set forth herein.

82. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall 

. . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

83. The implementation of Section 185 makes clear what is plain in Section 185 itself: 

this section was not designed as a benefit, but as an attempt to legalize state-sponsored harassment.

That harassment is effectuated by unconstitutionally discriminating against a class of persons in 

violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

84. On its face, Section 185’s relocation scheme appears to target “unauthorized 

aliens.” In reality, it discriminates against immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants based 

on race and national origin. Because Section 185 allows a state agency and/or its contractors to 

target and identify “unauthorized aliens,” implementation will result in targeting people of color 

born primarily in Latin American and Caribbean countries to determine their immigration status, 

exposing non-white and foreign-born persons to discriminatory enforcement.

A. Section 185 is Unconstitutional Because it is the Product of Animus Against People of 

Color, Persons Born Outside the United States, and Those Perceived to Be Born 

Outside the United States

85. To protect individuals from laws that violate the spirit of Equal Protection but do 

so using pretextual language that hides either or both the intent or the effect of the legislature, 

courts for the last 45 years have relied on the fact-sensitive inquiry first described in Village of 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 23 of 28
24

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977). 

There, the Court articulated a series of non-exhaustive factors that would guide lower courts in “a 

sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Id. 

at 266. 

86. Those factors include, but are not limited to: (1) “the impact of the official action”

and “whether it ‘bears more heavily on one race than another’”; (2) “[t]he historical background 

of the decision . . . , particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious 

purposes”; (3) the “specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision”; (4) 

“[d]epartures from the normal procedural sequence”; (5) “[s]ubstantive departures. . . , particularly 

if the factors usually considered important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary 

to the one reached”; and (6) “[t]he legislative or administrative history . . . , especially where there 

are contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or 

reports.” Id. at 266–68 (internal quotations omitted).

87. The Arlington Heights framework was developed to deal with the difficulty 

inherent in identifying laws that effectuate prejudice under the guise of non-discriminatory 

language. The absence of explicitly discriminatory language does not protect the law from 

constitutional scrutiny; rather, it merely identifies how invidious its discriminatory intent and 

impact are. 

88. Legislative history aside, it is clear that the impact of the official action “bears more 

heavily on one race than another.” Id. at 266 (internal quotation marks omitted). As described 

above, Plaintiffs are already suffering injuries caused by the increase in fear and uncertainty borne 

by the community of immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, who are overwhelmingly 

people of color. The discriminatory intention behind this law is clear to see when not read in a 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 24 of 28
25

vacuum. Section 185 must be considered in light of similar and recent discriminatory efforts by 

the Florida legislature, particularly the passage of SB 168, correctly described by the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida as the product of racial animus, finding two of its 

provisions unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause. See City of South 

Miami v. DeSantis, 561 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1287 (S.D. Fla. 2021). Learning from their mistakes in 

passing SB 168, the Florida legislature amended HB 5001 by adding this section to the annual

appropriation act at the last second, avoiding almost all debate and preventing the development of 

a record that could more easily prove discriminatory intent. 

89. Since Section 185 fails the discriminatory intent test articulated in Arlington 

Heights, it must be ruled unconstitutional. 

90. Alternatively, Section 185 can only be explained as irrational prejudice against 

what Section 185 describes as “unauthorized aliens.” The intended targets of the statute are people 

of color who cross the United States border. As such, it violates the Equal Protection Clause and 

is unconstitutional.

B. In the Alternative, Even if the Court Does Not Find Racial Animus, the Appropriation 

Bill is Nonetheless Unconstitutional Because it Can Only Otherwise be Explained as 

Irrational Prejudice Against “Unauthorized Aliens.”

91. When taking credit for the scheme, Governor DeSantis said the people transported 

were those most likely to travel to Florida. Even though he acknowledged on August 23, 2022,

that Florida was not receiving buses of migrants, revealing that Florida was not suffering from 

record amounts of noncitizen migrations to Florida, Governor DeSantis nonetheless told reporters 

the overarching aim of the policy was to change federal immigration policy. 

92. Whether located in Texas, Florida, or parts unknown, there is no doubt that the 

intended targets of the “relocation program” are people of color arriving from nations south of the 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 25 of 28
26

U.S./Mexico border.

35 That patently obvious reality helps explain why a scheme paid for by 

Florida to “relocate” “unauthorized aliens” ended up targeting and transporting Venezuelans and 

Peruvians out of Texas who were paroled into the country, many of whom are seeking asylum.

93. Governor DeSantis’ actions and statements leave little doubt that Defendants intend

to spend the $12 million to target and relocate immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean

out of Florida.36 Since the law discriminates on the basis of race and national origin, it must be 

reviewed under the exacting standard of strict scrutiny, which requires that any state discrimination 

be necessary to advance a compelling government purpose. See, e.g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. Of

Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 274 (1986). 

94. Yet, even if a court were to apply the lesser rational basis standard Section 185

would still fail: immigrants in the United States provide tangible benefits to the communities 

where they choose to relocate, economic and otherwise. Spending $615,000 to transport asylumseekers from Texas to Massachusetts does not further a legitimate interest, it merely perpetuates 

xenophobia and hate by targeting Latin American and Caribbean migrants. Where the only 

justifications for a discriminatory law are based in prejudice, the law is unconstitutional even under 

rational basis review. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985). 

And where a law is passed merely to “harm a politically unpopular group,” the law does not further 

a legitimate government interest, and the result is the same. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 

U.S. 528, 534 (1973); see also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996).

35 See, e.g., supra note 30 (discussing the need to respond to the “Biden administration’s policy of 

apprehending large number of illegal aliens at the Southwest Border”); supra note 1 at 9:00 

(discussing sending migrants to Delaware or Martha’s Vineyard in order to “secure the border”). 36 See supra note 28 (“While Florida has had all hands on deck responding to our catastrophic 

hurricane, the immigration relocation program remains active.”).

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 26 of 28
27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and arguments, Plaintiffs request that this 

Honorable Court:

a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 

b. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Section 185 of HB 5001; 

c. Declare Section 185 of HB 5001, in its entirety, unconstitutional; 

d. Grant Plaintiffs’ costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

e. Grant any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: December 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Paul R. Chavez George J. Leontire*

Paul R. Chavez Felicia L. Carboni*

Fla. Bar No. 1021395 LEONTIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 4328

2 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3750 Westport, MA 02740

Miami, FL 33131 P: (855) 223-9080

P: (786) 347-2056 F: (508) 207-9747

paul.chavez@splcenter.org george@leontirelaw.com

felicia@leontirelaw.com

Luz Lopez*

Southern Poverty Law Center 

1101 17th Street NW, Suite 705

Washington, D.C. 20036 

P: (404) 387-9314

luz.lopez@splcenter.org

Stephanie M. Alvarez-Jones*

Southern Poverty Law Center

150 E. Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 340

Decatur, GA 30030

P: (470) 747-8265

stephanie.alvarezjones@splcenter.org

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.*

Director, Criminal Justice Institute

Harvard University

1607 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

P: (617) 496-4777

F: (617) 496-2277

rsullivan@law.harvard.edu

*Application for admission Pro Hac Vice forthcoming 

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 27 of 28
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 1, 2022, the foregoing was electronically filed with the 

Clerk of the Court with the ECF system, and that the same will be timely served on all Defendants 

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

By: /s/ Paul R. Chavez

Paul R. Chavez

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-23927-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 28 of 28