Federal lawsuit filed in Florida after DeSantis announces proposed day-one terrorist blacklist

A legal fight with major stakes

Florida’s new terrorist-designation law is now at the center of a federal lawsuit. Civil rights groups say the law goes too far and could affect protected rights. State leaders say it is needed to address serious security concerns. The case is now moving through federal court.

The lawsuit came after Governor Ron DeSantis announced plans to use the new law against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR. Florida officials later told the court that no designation would be made before FDLE finalizes implementing regulations.

Who filed the lawsuit

Several well-known legal organizations joined together to challenge the law in federal court. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The legal team includes the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and private law firms.

The lawsuit names Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida Chief of Domestic Security Mark Glass, members of the Florida Cabinet, and the state’s 20 state attorneys as defendants. The plaintiffs want the court to stop the enforcement of the law. They also want the judge to declare key parts of the law unconstitutional.

The new Florida law

The lawsuit focuses on two new laws passed during Florida’s 2026 legislative session. Known as HB 1471 and HB 1473, they took effect on July 1. Together, they create a process for labeling some domestic organizations as terrorist groups. State officials say the process is designed to improve public safety.

Under the law, Florida’s Chief of Domestic Security first reviews the available information. Any designation must then be approved by a majority of the Florida Cabinet. The law outlines standards officials must consider before making a decision.

DeSantis names groups

At a July 1 news conference, Governor DeSantis announced plans to pursue terrorist-organization designations under the new law. He identified CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, antifa, and more than 90 foreign terrorist organizations as groups for review.

The designations were not final because HB 1471 requires approval by the governor and Florida Cabinet. Florida officials later told the court that no designation would be made before FDLE finalizes implementing regulations.

Why the lawsuit objects

The plaintiffs argue that the law does not provide enough legal protection before a designation is made. They say organizations should receive meaningful notice before such an important decision. They also argue that there should be a chance to present evidence first.

The complaint says these steps are basic parts of due process under the Constitution. Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe the law skips those protections. They argue that serious legal consequences should not happen without fair procedures. Those claims will play a major role as the case moves ahead.

Fun fact: Due process is protected by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Concerns about penalties

The lawsuit says the consequences of a designation could be severe for affected organizations. Under the law, designated groups are treated as criminal gangs in Florida. Providing material support or resources could become a first-degree felony. That offense can carry a prison sentence of up to 30 years.

The plaintiffs argue that the law defines support very broadly. They say routine banking services, office leases, volunteer work, and other everyday activities could become legal risks. They also argue that attorneys are not clearly protected while representing designated organizations.

Florida’s position

Florida officials defend the law as a public safety measure. Governor Ron DeSantis has described it as a framework for combating extremism and addressing groups linked to terrorist activity.

The law authorizes Florida’s Chief of Domestic Security to review potential designations and send recommendations for approval by the governor and Cabinet. Supporters argue that process gives the state another tool to respond to security concerns.

Earlier court battle

This is not the first legal dispute involving Governor DeSantis and CAIR. In December 2025, the governor issued an executive order attempting to label CAIR as a terrorist organization. That action quickly faced a legal challenge in federal court. The earlier dispute set the stage for today’s case.

In March 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of that executive order. The judge found it was likely to violate First Amendment protections. Lawmakers later created the new administrative process during the legislative session.

CAIR’s response

CAIR says it is a faith-based civil rights organization that operates lawfully nationwide. The group points to its work in community education, voter registration, and legal services. It says its mission is to protect civil rights. The organization rejects claims linking it to terrorism.

CAIR also notes that it has never been charged with or convicted of a crime. It says it has never been placed on any federal terrorism sanctions list. The organization believes the lawsuit will protect constitutional rights. Its leaders say they are prepared to defend their work in court.

Fun fact: CAIR was founded in 1994 and has grown into one of the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organizations in the United States.

Rights at the center

The lawsuit argues that several constitutional rights are at risk. The plaintiffs point to protections involving free speech, peaceful association, and the right to petition the government. They also argue the law violates due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Federal judges often examine both the wording of a law and its operation in practice. The court will consider arguments from both sides before making decisions. Constitutional challenges can take months or longer to resolve. Appeals are also possible after an initial ruling.

What the plaintiffs want

The organizations bringing the lawsuit are asking for several forms of relief. They want the court to declare the designation system unconstitutional. They also seek a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of the challenged provisions.

If the plaintiffs succeed, Florida officials could be barred from using the challenged designation process against CAIR and CAIR-Florida. If the state prevails, officials may continue pursuing the process within the limits of any court orders. Either outcome could influence future legal debates.

Why people are watching

This lawsuit is drawing attention because it combines questions about security and constitutional rights. Both issues have long been part of public debate across the United States. Legal experts are closely following how the federal court handles the case. Many expect careful review of the law’s procedures.

People with different viewpoints are watching for different reasons. Some focus on the state’s efforts to address security concerns. Others focus on protecting constitutional safeguards for organizations and individuals. The final decision could have lasting legal importance.

Curious how another Florida proposal could reshape state policy? Take a look at Sen. Rick Scott’s bill that would double fines for illegal immigration and unlawful hiring.

What happens next

The lawsuit is now beginning its journey through the federal court system. Both sides will present legal arguments, written filings, and supporting evidence. Judges may hold hearings before making important decisions. The process could take time before any final outcome is reached.

For now, the debate continues inside the courtroom rather than the political arena. The ruling will likely influence how Florida’s new law is applied going forward. It may also offer guidance for future constitutional challenges involving similar laws. Many people will be watching as the case develops.

Wondering what other major legal moves Governor DeSantis is making before leaving office? Check out Florida’s death row backlog for the full story.

How do you think courts should balance public safety and constitutional rights? Share your thoughts in the comments, and leave a like if you found this update informative.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Florida records decline in net retiree migration
• Florida Just Approved the Biggest Electric Rate Hike in U.S. History
• 11 New Jersey Facts So Rare Most Locals Will Swear You Made Them Up