Court Cases

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) terminated Brittney Brown, a wildlife biologist who manages critical shorebird nests, in retaliation for sharing political criticism of Charlie Kirk through her personal social media. FWC publicly declared that her personal expression was “not in line with the FWC, our values, or our mission” in its public post announcing her termination. Ms. Brown sued two FWC officials in late September 2025, alleging retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. She moved for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate reinstatement, which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied on November 13, 2025 after oral argument. The Court ordered immediate discovery to resolve factual disputes necessary to determine if FWC had adequate justification to terminate Ms. Brown for her personal expression. After the completion of discovery, in February Ms. Brown filed motions for summary judgment and for sanctions based on false statements filed with the court by the defendants. Trial is scheduled for June 15, 2026.

This case challenges the Village of Palmetto Bay’s retaliation against an elected councilmember for his protected political speech. After Charlie Kirk’s death, Palmetto Bay Councilmember Steve Cody posted political satire critical of Kirk’s views on gun rights. In response, the Village Council removed Cody from a committee and rescinded related representative roles—despite acknowledging that Cody’s comments were protected by the First Amendment.

Erika Santos joined the public debate over what legacy Charlie Kirk was leaving behind in the aftermath of his public killing on September 10, 2025. In retaliation for her criticisms, Eastern Florida State College fired the grant accountant after a perfunctory “investigation”. This is the second case we have brought to combat the government’s efforts to expand its censorship power based on reactions to Kirk’s death (the first is Brown v. Young).

This case arises out of Florida’s attempt to prohibit minors from viewing drag shows that officials might deem “lewd” in some way, without adhering to the accepted constitutional test for obscenity as to minors. The 2023 Florida Legislature’s SB 1438 (the “drag ban”) directly infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by purporting to broadly proscribe their ability to view drag performances that, though they might appear shocking or inappropriate in the eye of a government censor, are not constitutionally obscene for them. In May 2023, plaintiff’s HM Florida ORL LLC, which operates the drag-themed restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, sued to enjoin enforcement of the drag ban on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment because it restricts protected speech based on the identity of the speaker and is impermissibly vague and overbroad. The next month, a judge in the Middle District of Florida granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, declaring it substantially likely that HM Florida ORL LLC would succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims. The opinion explained that Florida’s drag ban was a facially content-based regulation on speech that likely failed strict scrutiny because the state had overshot the least restrictive means necessary to achieve its purported goal. The district court cited a wide range of conduct that might constitute a “live performance” under the drag ban. Moreover, the court held that the drag ban’s failure to define key phrases such as “lewd conduct” likely rendered it void for vagueness. The government appealed the injunction and sought to have it stayed pending appellate review, which both the Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court declined to do. In January 2024, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit concerning the drag ban. The brief contended that minors have a constitutional right to attend drag performances and that the drag ban’s expansion beyond the constitutional test for obscenity for minors is unconstitutionally overbroad and unconstitutionally vague. In May 2025, a three-judge appellate panel upheld the lower court’s decision. In December 2025, the full court decided to rehear the case en banc.

A 2021 Florida law generally prohibits “social media platforms” from censoring posts by or about political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” It specifically penalizes any content moderation practices the law classifies as censorship, deplatforming, or shadowbanning of both political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government. The ACLU’s position is that the government’s desire to have private speakers distribute more of any viewpoint is not a permissible basis for regulating the editorial decisions of private platforms. Choosing what not to publish and how to prioritize what is published is protected expression. On the very largest platforms, free expression values are best served if companies choose to preserve as much political speech as possible, including the speech of public figures. But, regardless of what platforms ought to permit as a matter of corporate policy, the government can’t constitutionally mandate what they ultimately choose. We filed amicus briefs in the district court (which granted a preliminary injunction on June 30, 2021), in the Eleventh Circuit (which, on May 23, 2022, affirmed in part and reversed in part the injunction), and the Supreme Court, which, on July 1, 2024, asked the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider the case under a particular standard. In August 2024, the Eleventh Circuit sent the case back to the district court, where the case is proceeding again. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2024.

The Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) forbade Cambridge Christian School from leading a prayer at football games conducted by the Association, and the school argued this violated free speech and burdened its religious freedom. In November 2019, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the free-speech and free-exercise claims. During the second appeal to the Eleventh Circuit (after the district ruled for the FHSAA on summary judgment), in October 2022 we joined partners in filing an amicus brief arguing that it was not a free-exercise violation to deny the prayer, and that it would be an establishment clause violation to permit it. Oral argument was held in June 2023. In September 2024, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to FHSAA on both the free-speech and free-exercise claims on government-speech grounds. It also vacated the district-court’s judgment in favor of the FHSAA on the declaratory- and injunctive-relief claims and instead instructed the court to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

In 2023, the Florida Legislature passed SB 266, which bans the funding of expression that “[a]dvocate[s] for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or promote[s] . . . political or social activism,” and restricts the viewpoints that can be taught in general education courses. Through the implementation of this law, the state and universities have limited professors’ academic freedom, including their scholarship. In addition to denying otherwise available research and scholarship funding, the state has stripped hundreds of courses of their longstanding general education status, making it harder for Florida’s students to study ideas the state dislikes. On behalf of educators and the broader university community, the ACLU of Florida and co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit on January 16, 2025, contending that SB 266 violates First Amendment protections by compelling viewpoint-based censorship and undermining the free exchange of ideas in public universities.

In June 2024, the ACLU of Florida and partners filed a lawsuit representing parents of Florida public school students who sued the DeSantis administration’s Board of Education for violating their First Amendment rights through the implementation of 2023’s HB 1069. The lawsuit argues that HB 1069 discriminates against parents who oppose book bans and censorship. It gives parents who favor censorship a formal process to challenge a local school board’s decision to keep a book on school shelves, while parents opposed to censorship are excluded from the process altogether. The plaintiffs, parents of students in Florida public schools, are seeking review of their local school boards’ decisions to remove or restrict books in their children's school districts and do not have access to seek that review.

On August 18, 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, Legal Defense Fund, and Ballard Spahr filed a lawsuit challenging the 2022 Florida Legislature’s HB7 (the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act”) on behalf of a group of Florida educators and students in higher education. The “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act is a classroom censorship bill that severely restricts Florida educators and students from learning and talking about issues related to race and gender in higher education classrooms. The law prohibits educators from teaching or even expressing viewpoints around racism and sexism that are disfavored by Florida lawmakers, even where those viewpoints are widely accepted and considered foundational information in their academic disciplines. The bill specifically targets and places vague restrictions on educators’ ability to teach and discuss concepts around the legacy of slavery in America, white privilege, and anti-racism. Florida is one of nearly 20 states across the country that have passed similar laws aimed at censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom. The lawsuit argues the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First and 14th Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators (including professors, lecturers, and student teaching assistants) and students that are vague and discriminatory. Additionally, it argues the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black educators and students. In August 2022, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction challenging the law’s higher-education provisions, which was granted in November 2022. The state appealed and the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in June 2024. The law remains on hold in higher-education settings as we wait for a ruling on the appeal. Further proceedings in the district court are on hold pending the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling.