A federal judge found the Attorney General of Florida, James Uthmeier, in civil contempt on Tuesday after he rejected a court order in a high -profile immigration case and then boasted about it in the interviews.
American District Judge Kathleen Williams wrote that Uthmeier offered “a series of unlikely interpretations of the language he used” to argue that he was fulfilling the order and that those interpretations were not credible.
“The litigants cannot change the simple meaning of the words, since it suits them, especially when transmitting the clear and unequivocal order of a court,” Williams wrote, ordering Uthmeier to present biweekly reports that show that he is fulfilling his order or risk more judicial actions.
The Uthmeier office did not immediately respond to a request for comments on Tuesday night.
Follow the live policy coverage here
Williams has presented a case that challenges the immigration laws signed this year by Governor Ron Desantis that makes a minor crime for anyone in the country illegally to enter or re -enter the State. She issued a restriction order in April, except for the application, and Uthmeier sent a notice to the state agencies that informed them about the order, and added that it did not agree with it and intended to appeal.
Five days later, on April 23, he sent a second notice to the application agencies, saying that his office had submitted a judicial presentation that challenged the restriction order.
“Judge Williams ordered my office to notify the evolutionary scope of his order, and I did,” he wrote. “But I can’t prevent you from fulfilling [the challenged laws]where there is no court order that prevents you adequately. As established in the summary that my office presented today, it is my opinion that no legal and legitimate order currently prevents their agencies from continuing to enforce the new illegal laws of entry and re -entry of Florida. “
Williams asked why he should not find Uthmeier in contempt, and he said he had not violated his order because he had not enforced the new laws and that he had notified the state agencies about his order.
Williams said he gave a much more challenging tone in media interviews.
“This judge is considering whether it stops me or not.
“I’m not going to bow,” he added.
In another interview two days later, Uthmeier said that “he is issuing this order and saying that you have to tell everyone to retire. I’m not going to do that.”
Williams said the comments were “relevant” because “Uthmeier’s repeated reinforcement of his message that the police are not obliged, intentional or not, increases the possibility of damage due to their continuous breach.”
“To be clear, the court does not care about the criticisms and disapproval of Uthmeier of the Court and the order of the court. But respect for the integrity of judicial orders is of the utmost importance,” Williams wrote.
She said that “it is free to transmit their continuous appeal of the court order of the court and her opinion that the court decisions are wrong. However, when they are told to inform the police to be banned to enforce an oriented law, they may not tell them otherwise.”
She ordered him to present biweekly reports on whether there have been arrests or arrests under the new laws. “Finally, if Uthmeier does not comply with these corrective sanctions, the court will consider more sanctions, including fines and fees to compensate for the plaintiffs for the costs of enforcing the order of the court.”
