Case: Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP v. Lee
4:21-cv-00187 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Filed Date: May 6, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This lawsuit challenges Florida's Senate Bill 90 (SB 90), which limited certain voting-related practices such as drop boxes, third-party ballot return, vote-by-mail applications, and activities in the vicinity of polling places. The Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, and Common Cause brought this suit on May 6, 2021, against the Secretary of State of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida under the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs claimed that the law violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. They asserted that SB 90 created an undue burden on the right to vote, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, constituted race discrimination, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief barring the defendants from enforcing SB 90.
On May 7, 2021, Senior Judge William Stafford recused himself from the case and it was reassigned to Judge Allen C. Winsor. A week later the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker. Days later, the Republican National Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee filed a motion to intervene, arguing that they had an interest in ensuring that the plaintiffs did not upend Florida’s duly enacted rule and that the defendant could not adequately represent their interest. On May 28, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the plaintiffs only stated blanket assertions of entitlement to relief and failed to sufficiently match any of their more than one hundred factual allegations to their five claims. The motion also asserted that the plaintiffs’ ADA claim should be dismissed because their injuries couldn’t be specifically attributed to the Secretary of State’s actions. Further, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ claims regarding restrictions on interacting with voters in voting lines should be dismissed because the alleged injuries could be more properly linked to county Supervisors of Elections who were not agents of the Secretary. The defendant conceded that the plaintiffs might be able to sustain their VRA and undue burden claims under a generous reading of the complaint, but that the court should, at a minimum, dismiss the other three claims.
In early June, Judge Walker granted the RNC and National Republican Senatorial Committee’s motion to intervene because he found that they had an interest in the case and adding them as defendants would not unduly delay the adjudication of the case or prejudice the original parties’ rights.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on June 11, 2021. The amended complaint added new defendants, the 67 county Supervisors of Elections in Florida, and alleged nine total counts, six specifically against the Secretary and all nine against the Supervisors. The plaintiffs separated their cause of action for intentional race discrimination into three claims, alleging that SB 90 violated the VRA and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. They asserted that the Secretary and Supervisors were liable for the discrimination caused by the drop box restrictions and other voting restrictions imposed by SB 90. They argued that SB 90’s restrictions coupled with Florida’s long history and ongoing record of racial discrimination and the events leading up to the passage of SB 90 raised strong inferences of Fourteenth Amendment violations.
As a result of this amended complaint, Judge Walker denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. Three days later, the court consolidated this case with two others challenging SB 90 as racially discriminatory (Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters v. Lee, et al., 21-cv-00242 and League of Women Voters v. Lee, 21-cv-00186) for discovery purposes only, but deferred the question of consolidating for trial until after discovery was completed. A fourth such case, Florida Rising Together v. Lee 21-cv-00201, was consolidated later.
The Secretary filed a new motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on June 25, 2021 and on July 7, 2021, 66 of the Supervisors filed a motion to be excused from active participation in the case. Judge Walker denied the motion to be excused on the same day, stating that the court first needed to determine (1) which of the plaintiffs’ claims were justiciable against the Secretary and (2) whether the plaintiffs had standing for each claim against the Secretary.
On October 8, 2021, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. Judge Walker dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against the Supervisors regarding volunteers who assist voters in returning vote-by-mail ballots, finding that the injuries were not traceable to the Supervisors. However, the court permitted the undue burden claim to proceed because the plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to show that restrictions on mail-in ballots denied people the right to vote and imposed a special burden on vulnerable voters. Judge Walker also denied the motion to dismiss for the plaintiffs’ intentional discrimination claim, ADA claim, and the claim that the drop box restrictions discriminated against Black and Latino voters because they had plausibly pleaded the facts.
On November 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove intentional race-based discrimination, disability discrimination, or discriminatory impact of SB-90. They further argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the nonprofit organizations failed to show that they or their members would be substantially burdened by the law. On December 17, 2021, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment only as to the First Amendment facial challenge to the non-solicitation provision and otherwise denied the motions. On January 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a written opening statement with the court.
Trial for all four consolidated cases began on January 31, 2022, before Chief Judge Mark E. Walker, and was docketed under League of Women Voters v. Lee, 21-cv-00186. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order following the bench trial. The court declared that the drop box provision and the prohibition against engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter (solicitation provision) of SB 90 violated the plaintiffs rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and granted the plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction. Applying the Arlington Heights factors, the court determined that several SB 90 provisions were enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black voters rather than for legitimate purposes. The court denied the ADA claims, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing under the ADA.
On April 7, 2022, the defendants filed a notice of appeal. USCA Case Number 22-11144-G. Oral arguments were held on September 15, 2022. On April 27, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit found that the court erred in finding discriminatory intent. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's constitutional holdings, finding that the challenged provisions did not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. The Eleventh Circuit also reversed the section 2 of the Voting Rights Act claims, holding that discriminatory impact rather than discriminatory intent is required for such violations. However, the appeals court affirmed that a part of the solicitation provision of SB 90 was unconstitutionally vague. The Eleventh Circuit remanded to the lower court to determine whether the drop-box and registration-delivery provisions unduly burden the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eleventh Circuit also engaged in their own factual findings and ordered this case to be remanded with new factual weighing that voter fraud “has plagued Florida’s elections in the past”. The two remaining claims on remand were: drop-box restrictions under section 101.69, Florida Statutes (2021), which require continuous in-person monitoring and limit availability to early voting hours, and registration-delivery requirements under section 97.0575, Florida Statutes (2021), which mandate third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) deliver applications within 14 days.
On February 8, 2024, the court issued a final order on remand in favor of the defendants. The court found that neither the drop-box restrictions nor the registration-delivery requirements unduly burden Plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Applying the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, the court found that drop-box restrictions only imposed a modest burden on voters and that the registration-delivery requirements only imposed burdens on 3PVROs and not voters directly. Per the Eleventh Circuit’s new factual findings on voter fraud in Florida, the court found that there are legitimate justifications for these provisions. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants on all remaining claims and ordered the case to be closed. Judge Walker, in his opinion, expressed concern with the Eleventh Circuit’s own engagement in fact finding, as opposed to remanding for further fact finding at the trial court level.
On December 20, 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to determine attorneys’ fees and ordered that the plaintiffs are entitled to $133,628.88 in attorneys' fees.
On January 17, 2025, the defendants filed a notice of appeal. USCA Case Number 25-10184-C. As of April 3, 2026, this appeal is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Devon Schmidt (11/18/2021)
Rachel Harrington (3/13/2022)
Liat Sinclair (4/3/2026)
Related Cases
Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters v. Lee, Northern District of Florida (2021)
League of Women Voters of Florida Inc. v. Lee, Northern District of Florida (2021)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59922714/parties/disability-rights-florida-v-lee/
Bailey, Leslie Claire (Florida)
Bardos, Andre V. (Florida)
Bardos, Andy V. (Florida)
Beato, Michael (Florida)
Begakis, Steven Christopher (Virginia)
Bailey, Leslie Claire (Florida)
Bernstein, Daniel Ross (Florida)
Cavataro, Benjamin L. (District of Columbia)
Duke, Peter Benjamin DeWitt (New York)
Fajana, Francisca D. (Florida)
FERENC, SAMUEL ISAAC (Florida)
Fletcher, Michael Anthony II (District of Columbia)
Fouhey, Elizabeth T (District of Columbia)
GALBRAITH, MILES LINDSEY (Florida)
GALINDO, EMILY MIRANDA (Florida)
Hirschel, Andrew Richard (Florida)
Khan, Sabrina Shermin (Florida)
Khazem, Jad H (District of Columbia)
MILLER, JEFFREY ANDREW (Florida)
Nasseri, Cyrus S (District of Columbia)
Reed, Mahogane D (District of Columbia)
Saunders, Morgan Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Scott, Sharion Trenell (Florida)
THEODORE, ELISABETH SUSAN (Florida)
Trigg, Amia L. (District of Columbia)
Bledsoe, William Kevin (Florida)
Chappell, William David (Florida)
Daines, Kenneth Clark (Virginia)
Ellis, Elizabeth Desloge (Florida)
ERDELYI, SUSAN SMITH (Florida)
FARUQUI, BILAL AHMED (Florida)
Giannini, Mary Margaret (Florida)
Jazil, Mohammad Omar (Florida)
JOHNSON, DIANA MASTERS (Florida)
Klitsberg, Nathaniel Adam (Florida)
Labasky, Ronald Albert (Florida)
Masters Johnson, Diana (Florida)
McVay, Bradley Robert (Florida)
Moore, James Timothy (Florida)
NELSON, WILLIAM LOWELL (Florida)
O'BRYANT, PATRICK SCOTT (Florida)
Olivo, Geraldo Francis III (Florida)
Shannin, Nicholas Ari (Florida)
Smith Erdelyi, Susan (Florida)
Stewart, Gregory Thomas (Florida)
Swain, Robert Charles (Florida)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59922714/disability-rights-florida-v-lee/
Last updated June 26, 2026, 5:26 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 6, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Nonprofit civil rights and disability rights organizations.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
County Supervisors of Elections
State
Secretary of State of Florida
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Florida 4:21-cv-00187
Northern District of Florida 4:21-cv-00201
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 22-11144
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 25-10184
Northern District of Florida 4:21-00187
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $133,628.88
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Voting:
Case Summary of Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP v. Lee, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/18123/ (last updated 4/3/2026).