Amid a constitutional challenge to a new Florida law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter the state, attorneys are battling over whether the names of two plaintiffs should be shielded from public disclosure.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, a 40-year-old woman from Honduras and a 35-year-old woman from Guatemala, said they fear physical harm, harassment and arrest if their names are made public. They want to proceed in the case under the initials Y.M. and V.V., respectively.
“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit challenging a law that will criminalize their existence in their home state of Florida, at a time of increasingly violent anti-immigrant rhetoric in Florida and across the country. Against this backdrop, plaintiffs fear the dangers posed by the public revelation of their identities, and that ‘information of the utmost intimacy’ about their own or their loved ones’ sensitive personal circumstances could become public,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in an April 11 motion, partially quoting from a legal precedent.
But lawyers in Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office this month urged U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reject the motion, pointing, in part, to the “longstanding presumption of openness in court proceedings that require parties to name themselves.”
ALSO READ: Federal appeals court urged to keep block on Florida's immigration law
“If a plaintiff wishes to challenge the legislative enactments of the people’s representatives, she should do so openly and publicly,” the state’s lawyers wrote. “Indeed, adult plaintiffs seeking to challenge Florida laws regarding controversies of all sorts — including abortion and mask mandates during a pandemic — did not seek anonymity in those cases. Immigration cases should be no different.”
The two women, the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworker Association of Florida filed the lawsuit on April 2 in federal court in Miami. The law (SB 4-C), passed during a February special legislative session, created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida.
Williams on April 29 issued a preliminary injunction to block the law, finding that it likely was preempted by federal immigration authority. The state has appealed the preliminary injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the issue is pending.
A preliminary injunction, however, does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, and the two sides are sparring about disclosing the identities of the women as the case continues.
The April 11 motion said Y.M., the Honduran woman, entered the U.S. about 20 years ago and lives in Gainesville. It said V.V. entered the U.S. in 2005 and was detained and deported. She entered again in 2014 and lives in Immokalee.
The motion cited the possibility that they could be arrested under the law if they leave Florida and re-enter it. Their attorneys said that helps bolster their arguments to remain identified only by initials, though their identities could be provided to the state under seal.
ALSO READ: AG Uthmeier responds to contempt threat from judge who blocked Florida immigration law
“Here, Plaintiffs are challenging a criminal statute on constitutional grounds,” the April 11 motion said. “They allege that they engage in and, in the future, intend to engage in activity that Florida has newly criminalized — that is, entering or attempting to enter the state after having entered the United States without inspection or having reentered the United States under a removal order. Under … SB 4-C, this activity exposes them to mandatory arrest, detention, and prosecution. Courts regularly find that admitting to, or the risk of admitting to, potentially criminal behavior weighs in favor of granting anonymity.”
Also, the motion cites concerns about harassment and harm, including Y.M. expressing concerns related to abuse she has suffered from the father of her son. It said she has submitted an application for what is known as a U Visa, which the federal government can grant to victims of crimes.
“She is worried about the risk of arrest or detention under SB 4-C’s entry provision,” the motion said. “If detained under SB 4-C, she fears that she will be separated from her U.S.-citizen child, who has a disability, for whom she is the sole caretaker and provider. She fears being named publicly in this lawsuit. She fears physical harm and social stigma and harassment on account of retaliation by law enforcement, by members of the public, and, most importantly, by her abuser.”
But the state’s lawyers, in the response filed May 9, disputed the risk of harm and said the plaintiffs had not met a legal test of being “compelled, absent anonymity, to disclose information of utmost intimacy.”
“At best, plaintiffs perhaps allege an intention to engage in illegal activity, but given the other factors — including ‘the most important factor’ of the intimacy of the information involved — plaintiffs have failed to rebut the constitutional presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,” the state’s lawyers wrote.
