State pushes back in fight over protest law

By Jim Saunders Florida News Service

Attorneys for Gov. Ron DeSantis told the Florida Supreme Court late Monday that a controversial 2021 law about protests that turn violent would not apply to peaceful demonstrators, disputing that the law is unconstitutional.

A 25-page brief was the latest move in a long-running battle about a law that DeSantis championed after nationwide protests following the 2020 death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Dubbed the “Combating Public Disorder” law, the measure included a series of steps aimed at cracking down on people who participate in riots or a “violent public disturbance.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in 2021 issued a preliminary injunction against the law, describing it as unconstitutionally “vague and overbroad.” The state appealed, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January requested help from the Florida Supreme Court with what it called a “novel” issue— how to determine the meaning of the word “riot” in the law.

In Monday’s brief, attorneys for DeSantis argued that, “to violate the statute, a defendant must be active in violence.”

“Nonviolent protest activity will never violate the statute, regardless of the behavior of others present,” said the brief, filed by lawyers in Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office and DeSantis’ office. “It is also clear that a person does not violate the statute unless he acts with common intent to assist in violence.”

Groups such as the Dream Defenders and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP challenged the law,, arguing that it would have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights. Among their arguments has been that the law could lead to peaceful demonstrators facing charges when protests turn violent.

Walker issued a 90-page ruling that pointed to vagueness in the measure.

“Though 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,” Walker wrote. “Thus, 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.”

A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in March 2022 in the state’s appeal. But the Atlanta-based court said in January that it was deferring a ruling on the preliminary injunction until