Saying the restrictions don't implicate speech, a sharply divided appeals-court panel has put on hold a judge's ruling that blocked parts of a law prohibiting non-Florida residents and non-U.S. citizens from collecting signatures for ballot proposals.
Republican legislators included the restrictions, backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, in a sweeping election law passed this spring after proposed constitutional amendments seeking to allow recreational marijuana and guarantee abortion rights narrowly failed to pass in November.
Florida Decides Healthcare, a political committee sponsoring a ballot measure aimed at expanding Medicaid coverage, filed a federal lawsuit in May, in part alleging the restrictions against non-citizens and non-Florida residents violate constitutionally protected political speech. Smart & Safe Florida, the committee behind the recreational marijuana proposal, also is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in July issued a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions on who can collect and deliver signed petitions, saying it went too far in limiting the committees' activities.
But in a 2-1 decision Tuesday siding with DeSantis' administration, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state "made a strong showing" that the law (HB 1205) did not violate the First Amendment. It issued a stay of Walker's ruling, which effectively will allow the law to be enforced while the legal battle continues.
The residency and citizenship requirements "do not restrict any speech elements of the petition-circulation process," Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Elizabeth Branch. Judge Nancy Abudu dissented.
The law limits collection of signed petitions but doesn't bar noncitizens or nonresidents from distributing blank forms or "otherwise engaging" with voters about ballot measures, Lagoa wrote, echoing arguments made by the state.
"And nothing in HB 1205 limits a nonresident or noncitizen from speaking to and attempting
to persuade a Florida voter on any political issue whatsoever," Lagoa, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, wrote.
Under the law, groups that "knowingly" violate the restriction on non-U.S. citizens and non-Florida residents could face $50,000 fines and other sanctions. Petitions delivered by such people would have to be scrapped.
Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the decision blocking Walker's ruling.
"Neither Californians nor Colombians have a right to collect petitions from Floridians who wish to change the Florida Constitution. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and put a stop to a district court that tried to legislate from the bench. Big win for our Constitution!" Uthmeier said in a post on X.
READ MORE: Campaign groups urge judge to further limit new restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
In a sharply worded 20-page dissenting opinion, Abudu accused the majority of being out-of-line with previous court decisions and "bringing more attention" to the appeals court "as an outlier" and "inviting the Supreme Court" to reverse Tuesday's decision.
"So, too, is the ongoing habit of disingenuously parsing Supreme Court precedent to accommodate a state's unconstitutional legislative whims," Abudu wrote.
Walker's "factual findings" about the "practical impact" of the restrictions, the law's "legal insufficiency and the concrete harms it causes are due deference," she added.
Abudu characterized the noncitizen and nonresident restrictions as a "sweeping bar on political participation" and called the state's defense of the law "a drastic departure from First Amendment case law" that "violates the foundational principles upon which the amendment rests."
If the law is upheld, "Florida can now criminalize any expressive activity it chooses on the ground that it is the 'conduct' portion and not the 'speech' it is targeting," Abudu wrote.
Taking aim at Abudu's dissent, the majority opinion said "the law does not sweep into any aspects of the (petition) circulation process that actually implicate 'the exchange of ideas about political change,'" referring to a ruling in a case known as Biddulph v. Mortham.
"Those attempts to persuade a Florida voter occur before — not after — the voter decides to sign a petition form," Lagoa wrote.
Lawyers for the DeSantis administration have contended that the restriction on out-of-state residents and non-U.S. citizens handling signed petitions was necessary to alleviate difficulties in investigating potential fraud. The state relied heavily on a report conducted by the Office of Elections Crimes and Security that found instances of wrongdoing related to the 2024 ballot initiatives.
Backers of the Medicaid ballot initiative called Tuesday's ruling disappointing but predicted the law would ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.
"By dismissing the First Amendment concerns at stake, the court ignored clear precedent and the fact that HB 1205 bans entire classes of people from engaging in the core political speech of citizen-led campaigns," Mitch Emerson, executive director of Florida Decides Healthcare, said in an email.
Groups challenging the law told Walker that the restrictions will severely hamper their ability to gather the required 880,000 valid signatures by Feb. 1 for placement on the 2026 ballot. Smart & Safe Florida, for example, has fired hundreds of out-of-state workers as it seeks to put a revised recreational-pot proposal on the ballot.
Other plaintiffs in the case include backers of an initiative seeking to protect the right to clean water; Poder Latinx, a group which represents Hispanic voters and their communities; and the League of Women Voters of Florida.
Tuesday's majority opinion and the dissent brought into sharp focus a sometimes-acrimonious divide between judges appointed to the conservative-leaning 11th Circuit by President Donald Trump — including Lagoa and Branch — and those, such as Abudu, placed on the bench by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic presidents.
Abudu's dissent criticized a finding by Lagoa and Branch that Walker "abused (his) discretion" by issuing the preliminary injunction. An appellate court's review "is very deferential" to a judge who issued a ruling, she wrote.
Copyright 2025 WLRN Public Media