Immigration Article of the Day: Banned In Florida: Progressive Politics, Academic Freedom, and Immigrant Justice by Rebecca A. Sharpless

As Florida veers toward being an ultra-conservative state, educators, activists, and advocates struggle to preserve what’s left of an open society in Florida. Headlines have focused on Florida’s obvious, frontal attacks on communities and groups of people. Less in the spotlight are the more subtle, dog-whistle politics in play, such as the governor and Florida legislature’s tactic of using a focus on crime and undocumented immigration as a proxy for xenophobia. This essay turns to an even darker chapter in Florida’s history to draw a parallel to the present political moment. In what is known as Florida’s “Little McCarthyism,” the Florida legislature formed a committee known as the Johns Committee-to investigate NAACP leaders, LGBTQ+ university faculty and students, and liberal university professors. Through the 1960s, the Florida legislature continued to interfere in university governance and academic freedom, as illustrated by the political denial of tenure to an activist University of Florida professor. Comparing present-day Florida with a period of history generally regarded as a mistake unmasks the urgent nature of the threat now faced in Florida. Moreover, this history of discrimination correctly informs the equal protection legal analysis of Florida’s anti-immigrant legislation. In the 2021 U.S. district court decision in City of South Miami v. DeSantis, the court drew on Florida’s history of racism in law enforcement to understand the anti-immigrant dog-whistle politics of Florida’s legislature and find that its anti-sanctuary city legislation violated equal protection. This rare equal protection victory was short-lived, however, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision on standing grounds and expressed “grave doubts about the merits.” As progressive groups and advocates organize against Florida’s turn to the right, they must remain cognizant of the reality that today’s extreme conservatism stems from entrenched ideologies from the state’s past. The Supreme Court’s requirement of intentional discrimination and courts’ narrow construction of standing limit the use of equal protection doctrine as a bulwark against invidious discrimination.