SB 4-C Faces Eleventh Circuit Skepticism as Court Keeps Injunction

(FLORIDA) A sweeping Florida immigration penalty law, SB 4-C, remains blocked as a skeptical Eleventh Circuit keeps a federal injunction in place and prepares to hear arguments on the law’s future. The law, which criminalizes unauthorized entry or re-entry into Florida and adds severe penalties including mandatory detention without bond and the death penalty for capital felonies, has been halted since April 2025 by a federal district court that found the measure likely conflicts with federal immigration authority and the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction in April, concluding that civil rights groups are likely to succeed on their claims that Florida cannot set up its own immigration enforcement scheme. The court found that SB 4-C appears preempted by federal law, which gives Washington primary control over immigration.

Florida appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit refused to let the state enforce the statute while the case proceeds, signaling strong doubts about the law’s legality. Florida then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction on an emergency basis. The justices declined, leaving the lower court’s order in place and keeping SB 4-C on ice.

That refusal set the stage for a high-stakes hearing in the Eleventh Circuit, where oral arguments on the merits are scheduled for October 2025. For now, the law is frozen, and police and prosecutors cannot bring charges under it anywhere in Florida.

Policy Provisions Under the Microscope

At the heart of the dispute is whether Florida can criminalize conduct already addressed by federal immigration law and impose uniquely harsh punishments. SB 4-C includes several prominent provisions:

• Criminalizes unauthorized entry or re-entry into Florida by undocumented immigrants, with mandatory minimum prison terms ranging from nine months to five years, depending on prior convictions.
• Requires detention without bail for people arrested under the statute, conflicting with Florida’s traditional bond framework.
• Imposes the death penalty for capital felonies committed by undocumented immigrants.
• Directs local law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities when they make arrests under the law.

Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, Florida Immigrant Coalition, and Farmworker Association of Florida, filed a federal class-action lawsuit asserting the law is unconstitutional and preempted by federal statutes. They argue SB 4-C:

• Creates a Florida-specific immigration regime that duplicates federal immigration rules.
• Invites racial profiling through expanded state enforcement of immigration status.
• Restricts interstate movement in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case has become a major test of how far a state can go when federal law already sets the rules for immigration enforcement.

Judicial Pushback and Federal Authority

The Eleventh Circuit’s repeated refusals to revive SB 4-C underscore a central legal principle: immigration enforcement is primarily a federal matter. The appeals court emphasized that states cannot override or duplicate federal immigration rules with their own penalties and procedures. That position aligns with past Supreme Court cases holding that state measures cannot interfere with the federal government’s system for managing entry, removal, detention, and related penalties.

The district court’s order also flagged the law’s clash with the Dormant Commerce Clause, a doctrine that prevents states from passing measures that unduly burden the movement of people or goods across state lines. Critics say SB 4-C could chill lawful travel by mixed-status families and workers who cross borders within the United States 🇺🇸, while also driving local agencies to detain people solely based on immigration status concerns.

Florida leaders defend SB 4-C as a necessary response to public safety worries and federal inaction. But the courts so far have not accepted that argument. The state’s request for emergency relief was rejected by both the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court, leaving the preliminary injunction intact as the parties prepare for a full appeal on the merits.

Local Impact and Practical Concerns

For families and employers in Florida, the pause is not just a legal footnote. If enforced, SB 4-C could have:

• Sent more residents into custody and reshaped local policing, jails, and courts.
• Turned routine activities — hospital visits, school drop-offs, regular commutes — into higher-risk encounters for undocumented people and mixed-status households.
• Deterred people from reporting crimes, cooperating with police, or seeking medical care, creating wider public safety and public health problems.

Local prosecutors warned the law would disrupt discretion in charging decisions. SB 4-C’s mandatory detention without bond threatens to upend Florida’s constitutional bail principles and pressure county jails already running near capacity. Public defenders and legal aid groups warned of:

• A surge in cases
• Longer pretrial detention times
• Increased strain on defense resources, especially for those without prior criminal histories

Immigrant communities say the law’s structure invites profiling. A traffic stop or minor infraction could escalate into an immigration status check and extended detention, according to the lawsuit. Community organizations argue this dynamic harms farmworkers, service industry employees, and families with long ties to Florida. Employers, especially in agriculture and construction, worry about labor shortages if arrests and detention rise.

The state’s notification mandate to federal authorities adds another layer. While federal agencies already coordinate removals and detainers, opponents argue a blanket requirement risks pushing local police into federal roles. The courts will examine whether that mandate effectively commandeers local resources for immigration aims in a way federal law does not permit.

What’s Next: Appeals and Timeline

As the Eleventh Circuit prepares for October 2025 arguments, both sides are sharpening their focus on federal preemption:

• Plaintiffs point to the comprehensive federal system that manages unlawful entry and re-entry, including criminal penalties and immigration detention rules set by Congress.
• Florida counters that it can protect public safety within its borders.

The appeals court’s questions so far suggest a tough road for the state if it cannot show how SB 4-C fits within federal law without conflicting with it.

For readers wanting a primer on how federal appeals work, the judiciary’s overview of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explains the court’s role and procedures. While that page does not address this case specifically, it provides context for how appeals move from district courts through the circuit and, in rare instances, to the Supreme Court.

The bottom line today: SB 4-C is not enforceable. The injunction remains in place, and no one should face charges under this statute while the case proceeds.

Immigrants with pending criminal or immigration matters should speak with qualified counsel for advice tailored to their situation, especially if past convictions or travel across state lines could intersect with any future version of the law.

All eyes now turn to October 2025, when the Eleventh Circuit will hear full arguments. A decision could come months later:

1. If the court affirms the injunction and ultimately strikes down SB 4-C, Florida may have to rethink state-level immigration penalties.
2. If the court revives parts of the statute, new enforcement questions and litigation will follow.

Either outcome will shape how far states like Florida can go when federal immigration law already occupies the field.