First Court of Appeals strikes down attempt to derail DeSantis’ new congressional map

A preliminary injunction, effectively a court stay, is an order that prevents a party or individual from taking a particular action — much like a restraining order. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of a situation during or before the final judgment of a trial.

In this case, the injunction wasn’t against a person, but against the redistricting map drawn by the state legislature of Florida. The court order also required the state of Florida to implement a different map from the one they originally selected.

It’s not unusual for federal judges to place an injunction on a questionable law or a developing situation that will be impacted by the court’s findings. But when Judge Layne Smith issued his order, he didn’t offer any explanation. And, in an unusual move, Smith tried to tell the state of Florida what he believed was the appropriate map for them to use — exceeding the scope of what federal judges can normally do through injunctions.

Alarmed by the order, the state of Florida appealed the injunction to the First Circuit. And in its decision this week, the First Circuit made it clear they didn’t agree with Judge Smith.

In his majority opinion, Judge Adam Tanenbaum fiercely criticized what he saw as a blatant misuse of a preliminary injunction.

"Temporary injunction is not a vehicle by which to procure a provisional remedy, nor is it a procedural tool by which to fast-track some burning constitutional question for appellate consideration in advance of trial," he stated.

"There has been no trial or final evidentiary hearing, no final adjudication of the facts, and no declaratory judgment. The pleadings have not closed, the state parties have not answered, and no one has stepped forward to set the matter for trial. Nevertheless, it seems as if the determination of the temporary injunction motion is being treated as if it is the determination on the merits. Yet, it is not. It cannot be. The object of a hearing on a motion for temporary injunction is drastically different than the object of a final evidentiary hearing."

Behind the court proceedings and legal questions, there is another issue at play.

The map in question was controversial because of the State’s fifth congressional district — an area Florida Governor Ron DeSantis paid special attention to. Florida’s 5th, a long thin area that cuts along much of the state’s northern border, has remained a largely black district since the lines were drawn in 2010. For many, the district clearly indicated racial gerrymandering. DeSantis said he would be inclined to veto any map that failed to address the issue.

But the resulting map, which broke up the district, immediately raised eyebrows from left-leaning advocates. They regarded the breaking up of the district as an attempt to dilute the black vote in Florida. That reaction led attorney Eric Marcas to sue the state of Florida and Judge Smith’s eventual injunction. The map, Marcas claimed, failed to meet Florida's Fair Districts Standards—a guiding metric for the state's redistricting process.

The court has yet to determine if Marcas' suite holds water or whether the state of Flordia is guilty of ignoring its guidelines.

The First Court of Appeals made one thing clear: judges can’t just use their power to force their desired change through a state. For left-leaning advocates, it’s a setback that’s set in stone. If they want to change the makeup of Florida's congressional maps, they will have to find some other way to do it.

In the meantime, the injunction against the plan has been lifted as the federal judge continues to evaluate the constitutional merits of the proposed map.