Case: Pizzo v. DeSantis

On September 22, 2022, a state representative of Florida filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County in Florida against the Governor of Florida, the Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation, challenging the transportation of migrants from San Antonio, Texas into Florida and then to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The complaint alleged the transportation of the migrants was in violation of a state statute forbidding governmental entities from entering into a contract to willfully transport a person or persons into the State of Florida knowing that the person is an unauthorized alien. The complaint further alleged that the authorization of state funds for the transportation of the migrants in Florida’s 2022 Appropriations Act was contrary to the state constitution (which provides that “[l]aws making appropriations for salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the state shall contain provisions on no other subject.” Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The case was assigned to Judge John C. Cooper. 

On October 3, 2022, the Chief Financial Officer filed a motion to dismiss, not only on grounds that the CFO was not a proper defendant but also that the complaint fails to allege any specific injury to the plaintiff so as to lack standing. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 7, 2022, contending the plaintiff lacked standing to assert any of the claims. 

On November 21, 2022, the state trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiff was given fourteen days to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on December 5, 2022. The amended complaint challenged the constitutionality of a state legislative act that expanded executive authority and appropriated $12 million to facilitate an “Immigrant Relocation” program. The complaint alleged that the statute modified procurement standards, modified spending authority, and created a new program in violation of the state constitution. With regard to the Chief Financial Officer, the complaint alleged the new program frustrates the CFO’s spending and investment duties as outlined by the state constitution. Finally, the complaint alleged that the creation of the relocation program and the appropriations for which violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the authorization to regulate immigration is reserved to the federal government. 

On January 3, 2023, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The Governor and Department of Transportation (DOT) alleged lack of standing, while the CFO alleged that he was not the proper defendant. The Court denied the Governor and DOT’s motion since the plaintiff sufficiently asserted causes of action against both defendants on January 20. The court then dismissed the suit as to the CFO on January 23. 

On January 27, 2023, the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff then cross-motioned on February 10. A hearing was scheduled for February 22. During the hearing, the governor’s lawyers argued that the claims were moot since the state’s legislators had met in special session to repeal the challenged law and replace it with a new measure to allow the governor to move migrants anywhere in the United States, not just from Florida, and take them to “sanctuary cities” in blue states. Both parties agreed that the challenged portion of the law that was used as the basis for the lawsuit accusing the governor of illegally flying migrants to Massachusetts was repealed. As such, Judge Cooper dismissed the suit, but noted that the dismissal “should not be taken as a determination [as to] whether the appropriations bill was constitutional or not constitutional.” 

The case was dismissed, and is now considered closed.