Civil rights groups have dropped their federal lawsuit against Florida’s 2021 “Anti-Riot Act” in the wake of a federal appeals court’s decision concluding that the law’s heightened scrutiny of riot-related acts doesn't apply to peaceful demonstrators.
The plaintiffs, including Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, ended the legal battle earlier this month after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed whether the 2021 law is too vague, overbroad or essentially criminalizes First Amendment activities such as political protests.
“... We hold that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their vagueness and overbreadth challenges to the amended riot statute,” the 11th Circuit opinion authored by Judge Jill Pryor states.
The court also found that a federal district court had abused its discretion by granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. In handing down the Oct. 7 opinion, the three-judge appeals panel relied heavily on information provided by the Florida Supreme Court.
“... (A) peaceful protester, under the most natural reading of the statute, is no rioter,” the state Supreme Court said, adding that the law does not pertain to “a person who is present at a violent protest but neither engages in, nor intends to assist others in engaging in, violent and disorderly conduct.”
A coalition of groups representing the plaintiffs – the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., ACLU of Florida and the Community Justice Project – expressed satisfaction with what the litigation attained.
“The definitive ruling from the Florida Supreme Court and 11th Circuit that this law cannot be used to prosecute peaceful protestors addresses the crux of our lawsuit – ensuring that Floridians have the freedom to engage in their sacred, constitutional right to peacefully protest,” the groups said in a statement emailed to the Florida Record. “We are pleased that this lawsuit was able to achieve this result."
The Florida law contained language creating a defense in civil lawsuits filed by protesters who sue over injuries or other damages they have sustained. This defense is intended to negate criminal liability or civil liability for those who are defendants in litigation filed by protesters who acted “in furtherance of a riot,” according to the state Legislature’s analysis of the measure.
The wording of this provision and others led the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit to argue that portions of the law might be applied to demonstrators not engaging in violent actions – or those taking videos of unfolding events. But the appeals court disagreed.
“... The statute does not broadly prohibit constitutionally protected speech,” the court said in its decision. “Nor does it reach the plaintiffs’ hypothetical photographing or videotaping of police officers at a violent protest, so long as the photography or videography is not intended to assist others in carrying out violence.”
Florida lawmakers passed the Anti-Riot Act in the wake of nationwide protests over the May 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers and other incidents of the use of excessive force by police officers. Some of those protests led to unlawful behavior by participants, including rioting, violent acts and property damage.