Elham Asaad Buaras
Florida has temporarily suspended plans to designate one of the United States’ largest Muslim civil rights organisations as a “domestic terrorist organisation” after the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched a federal lawsuit challenging Governor Ron DeSantis’ controversial new domestic terrorism law.
In a court filing submitted on July 13, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) said no organisation would be designated under the new law until regulations governing the process had been finalised.
The filing states that “no designation will be made before the regulations are finalized.”
Lawyers representing DeSantis and other state officials told the U.S. District Court they could not say when those regulations would be completed. Instead, both sides have been ordered to file a further status update by July 22, leaving the constitutional challenge ongoing while the state drafts the rules.
The dispute centres on House Bills 1471 and 1473, which DeSantis signed into law in April despite strong opposition from civil rights groups. The legislation, which took effect on July 1, creates a first-of-its-kind state process allowing Florida officials to classify organisations as domestic terrorist groups while significantly expanding the state’s power to impose criminal, civil and administrative penalties on designated organisations, their employees and those associated with them.
Within hours of the laws taking effect, DeSantis publicly announced his intention to use the legislation against CAIR, prompting the organisation and its Florida chapter to immediately file suit in federal court.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Akeel & Valentine PLC and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP on behalf of CAIR and CAIR-Florida.
On July 2, CAIR’s legal team sought an emergency court order blocking Florida from implementing the designation while the case proceeds, warning it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm. The court declined to grant emergency relief at that stage, saying it required further evidence that state officials intended to follow through on their public statements.
The state’s latest filing has now confirmed that no designation will take place until the regulations are completed.
At the heart of the lawsuit is CAIR’s claim that the legislation violates constitutional protections for free speech, freedom of association and due process by allowing state officials to effectively shut down organisations before they have a meaningful opportunity to challenge a designation in court.
The organisation argues that being labelled a domestic terrorist organisation would effectively force it to cease operating in Florida, ending its civil rights advocacy, legal representation, community outreach and educational programmes while exposing it, its employees and those associated with it to severe criminal, civil and administrative penalties. The lawsuit also argues the law could make it legally dangerous for attorneys to represent CAIR, claiming lawyers themselves could face prosecution simply for providing legal services after a designation takes effect.
CAIR describes itself as a non-profit civil rights organisation dedicated to defending religious liberty, protecting the rights of American Muslims and combating discrimination. It says its work—including legal advocacy, education, community outreach and public campaigning—is protected by the First Amendment and notes it has never been charged with or convicted of terrorist activity.
The organisation argues the legislation is intended to punish it for its political views and criticism of the DeSantis administration. Its lawyers say the law effectively allows elected officials to become “judge, jury and non-profit executioner” by shutting down organisations before they have a chance to defend themselves. CAIR-Florida also argues the measures threaten the broader principle that faith-based organisations should be free to advocate on behalf of their communities without fear of political retaliation.
DeSantis has repeatedly criticised CAIR, arguing the organisation poses public safety concerns. Although his July 1 announcement referred to the national organisation, the lawsuit notes he has also previously indicated he considers CAIR-Florida to be a terrorist organisation. CAIR has vigorously denied the allegations.
Responding to the state’s latest filing, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, accused Florida officials of acting unconstitutionally from the outset.
“From day 1, Florida officials’ use of this dangerous new designation regime has violated the Constitution,” she said. “Gov. DeSantis has simply no legitimate basis to brand our clients with one of society’s most reviled labels, let alone to force them to shut their doors under threat of crippling criminal penalties, and leave the Floridians they serve without a crucial civil rights voice.
“In the United States, CAIR and all nonprofits have the right to criticize the government, protect religious freedom, and advocate for the causes they believe in.”
Scott McCoy, deputy legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the state’s own actions undermined its claim that the legislation was intended to protect public safety.
“The fact that Florida officials announced their intent to designate CAIR at their July 1 press conference, before regulations they now plan to issue have come into effect, shows their calculated and cruel plan to designate CAIR is not because it is in any way a threat to public safety, but because doing so suits their political agenda,” he said.
“The State’s decision to negatively brand CAIR has already violated its constitutional rights and inflicted immediate and ongoing harm to it.”
The lawsuit is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal conflict between CAIR and the DeSantis administration.
In March, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a separate executive order issued by DeSantis that similarly labelled CAIR a terrorist organisation and sought to prevent the group, and people associated with it, from receiving a range of state and local government benefits.
Florida has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, meaning multiple legal battles between the two sides are now unfolding simultaneously.
Although Florida has paused any immediate designation while it finalises the regulations, the constitutional challenge remains active.
