DESANTIS’ NEW FLORIDA LAW IGNITES A FIRESTORM!

Constitutional Sovereignty or Civil Rights Overreach? Inside Florida’s New Legislative Battle

TALLAHASSEE — Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a sweeping new legislative package that marks one of the most aggressive efforts in recent state history to insulate Florida’s legal and educational institutions from what the administration describes as “pernicious foreign influence.” The move, centered on a series of bills passed during the 2026 legislative session, has set the stage for a high-stakes clash between the state’s executive branch and advocacy groups who fear a profound erosion of civil liberties and due process.

The legislation—most notably embodied in a series of measures addressing “foreign countries of concern” and terrorism designations—aims to restrict the application of foreign law in state courts, tighten ethics requirements for public officials, and prohibit the use of state funds for programs that officials determine are affiliated with foreign or domestic terrorist organizations.

For Governor DeSantis, the laws are a necessary “defensive shield” for the state. “Today, I signed legislation to strengthen Florida’s defenses against foreign adversaries,” DeSantis said during the signing ceremony. “This legislation combats hostile foreign influence in Florida by establishing new restrictions on agreements and partnerships, ensuring that public officials are serving Floridians—not foreign adversaries.”

The Anatomy of the New Laws

The legislative package—which includes HB 905 and related measures—establishes a rigorous framework for how the state interacts with individuals, businesses, and organizations linked to what Florida classifies as “foreign countries of concern.” Current designations include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.

The provisions are far-reaching:

Judicial Restrictions: The law prohibits Florida courts and administrative tribunals from enforcing foreign judgments, applying foreign law, or honoring contract clauses that would result in the violation of Florida’s public policy.

Designation Powers: The state now grants high-ranking security officials the power to designate organizations as “domestic” or “foreign terrorist organizations,” effectively barring them from receiving state funds or government contracts.

Institutional Constraints: Public schools, charter schools, and state colleges are prohibited from expending funds on any program or campus activity that promotes a designated organization or person associated with these groups.

Surrogacy and Adoption: New restrictions prevent gestational surrogacy contracts and preplanned adoption agreements if any party involved is a citizen or resident of a “foreign country of concern.”

A Storm of Controversy and Constitutional Concerns

While supporters hail the laws as a triumph for constitutional sovereignty, the reaction from advocacy groups has been nothing short of explosive. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Florida) has been at the forefront of the opposition, arguing that the legislation is a thinly veiled instrument of discrimination that targets Muslim communities under the guise of “national security.”

Hiba Rahim, executive director of CAIR-Florida, decried the measures as a direct assault on the First Amendment. “What this actually is, is an anti-free speech law. It’s an anti-due process law. It’s an anti-First Amendment law,” Rahim said during a recent press conference. She and other critics argue that the broad, often ill-defined power to “designate” groups as terrorist organizations—without the rigorous evidence-based processes used at the federal level—threatens to weaponize state agencies against political opponents and faith-based groups.

The Core Objections:

Chilling Effect on Speech: Opponents fear that the threat of losing funding, scholarships, or employment will force students and faculty into self-censorship, particularly on college campuses where political discourse is essential.

Lack of Due Process: Unlike federal designations, which follow strict criteria, Florida’s state-level designation process is viewed by critics as highly subjective, placing immense power in the hands of a small group of political appointees.

Broad Definitions: Civil rights advocates argue that terms like “material support” or “promoting” a group are so vague they could easily be used to harass organizations engaged in legitimate human rights advocacy or religious education.

The “Foreign Law” Debate: A Recurring Theme

The provision prohibiting the application of “foreign law” in Florida courts is not entirely new to the state’s legislative history. Florida previously enacted similar measures in 2014, aimed primarily at ensuring that religious codes—such as Sharia—do not supersede the U.S. or Florida Constitutions in civil matters like divorce or custody disputes.

However, the 2026 expansion takes a more aggressive stance, explicitly linking the enforcement of foreign judgments and “foreign law” to the broader “countries of concern” framework. Legal scholars are divided on the impact. Some argue that Florida law already provides sufficient protections, as state courts are only required to recognize foreign judgments that meet stringent standards of fairness, jurisdiction, and due process. Others, however, see the new law as a performative “political theater” that complicates international commercial and family law without offering tangible security benefits.

What Lies Ahead: The Battle for the Courts

The legislative package has already sparked a cascade of legal challenges. CAIR-Florida, having already seen a federal judge block a previous executive order that designated them a “terrorist organization,” is monitoring the new law’s enforcement closely. As July 1 marks the effective date for many of these provisions, the state is bracing for a wave of litigation that could ultimately see the Florida Supreme Court—or even federal courts—deciding whether these measures cross the line from “state security” into “constitutional overreach.”

For Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature, the goal is clear: to make Florida the most inhospitable environment in the nation for entities they view as hostile to American and Floridian interests. For his critics, however, the legislation is a dangerous departure from the democratic norms of transparency and civil liberty.

As the state moves forward, the reality is that these laws will fundamentally alter the day-to-day operations of universities, businesses, and the judiciary. Whether they provide the promised security or create a new set of legal and social liabilities remains the central question of a political struggle that is likely to echo through the halls of the state capital for years to come.

As the new regulations take effect, organizations and residents are advised to consult with legal counsel regarding the impact of these changes on contracts, academic programs, and foreign property interests.

Do you believe that state-level designations of “terrorist organizations” provide essential security, or do they risk creating a dangerous precedent of political weaponization?