persuasive essay about life brainly

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 113 perfect persuasive essay topics for any assignment.

General Education

Do you need to write a persuasive essay but aren’t sure what topic to focus on? Were you thrilled when your teacher said you could write about whatever you wanted but are now overwhelmed by the possibilities? We’re here to help!

Read on for a list of 113 top-notch persuasive essay topics, organized into ten categories. To help get you started, we also discuss what a persuasive essay is, how to choose a great topic, and what tips to keep in mind as you write your persuasive essay.

What Is a Persuasive Essay?

In a persuasive essay, you attempt to convince readers to agree with your point of view on an argument. For example, an essay analyzing changes in Italian art during the Renaissance wouldn’t be a persuasive essay, because there’s no argument, but an essay where you argue that Italian art reached its peak during the Renaissance would be a persuasive essay because you’re trying to get your audience to agree with your viewpoint.

Persuasive and argumentative essays both try to convince readers to agree with the author, but the two essay types have key differences. Argumentative essays show a more balanced view of the issue and discuss both sides. Persuasive essays focus more heavily on the side the author agrees with. They also often include more of the author’s opinion than argumentative essays, which tend to use only facts and data to support their argument.

All persuasive essays have the following:

• Introduction: Introduces the topic, explains why it’s important, and ends with the thesis.
• Thesis: A sentence that sums up what the essay be discussing and what your stance on the issue is.
• Reasons you believe your side of the argument: Why do you support the side you do? Typically each main point will have its own body paragraph.
• Evidence supporting your argument: Facts or examples to back up your main points. Even though your opinion is allowed in persuasive essays more than most other essays, having concrete examples will make a stronger argument than relying on your opinion alone.
• Conclusion: Restatement of thesis, summary of main points, and a recap of why the issue is important.

What Makes a Good Persuasive Essay Topic?

Theoretically, you could write a persuasive essay about any subject under the sun, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you should. Certain topics are easier to write a strong persuasive essay on, and below are tips to follow when deciding what you should write about.

It’s a Topic You Care About

Obviously, it’s possible to write an essay about a topic you find completely boring. You’ve probably done it! However, if possible, it’s always better to choose a topic that you care about and are interested in. When this is the case, you’ll find doing the research more enjoyable, writing the essay easier, and your writing will likely be better because you’ll be more passionate about and informed on the topic.

You Have Enough Evidence to Support Your Argument

Just being passionate about a subject isn’t enough to make it a good persuasive essay topic, though. You need to make sure your argument is complex enough to have at least two potential sides to root for, and you need to be able to back up your side with evidence and examples. Even though persuasive essays allow your opinion to feature more than many other essays, you still need concrete evidence to back up your claims, or you’ll end up with a weak essay.

For example, you may passionately believe that mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best ice cream flavor (I agree!), but could you really write an entire essay on this? What would be your reasons for believing mint chocolate chip is the best (besides the fact that it’s delicious)? How would you support your belief? Have enough studies been done on preferred ice cream flavors to support an entire essay? When choosing a persuasive essay idea, you want to find the right balance between something you care about (so you can write well on it) and something the rest of the world cares about (so you can reference evidence to strengthen your position).

It’s a Manageable Topic

Bigger isn’t always better, especially with essay topics. While it may seem like a great idea to choose a huge, complex topic to write about, you’ll likely struggle to sift through all the information and different sides of the issue and winnow them down to one streamlined essay. For example, choosing to write an essay about how WWII impacted American life more than WWI wouldn’t be a great idea because you’d need to analyze all the impacts of both the wars in numerous areas of American life. It’d be a huge undertaking. A better idea would be to choose one impact on American life the wars had (such as changes in female employment) and focus on that. Doing so will make researching and writing your persuasive essay much more feasible.

List of 113 Good Persuasive Essay Topics

Below are over 100 persuasive essay ideas, organized into ten categories. When you find an idea that piques your interest, you’ll choose one side of it to argue for in your essay. For example, if you choose the topic, “should fracking be legal?” you’d decide whether you believe fracking should be legal or illegal, then you’d write an essay arguing all the reasons why your audience should agree with you.

Arts/Culture

• Should students be required to learn an instrument in school?
• Did the end of Game of Thrones fit with the rest of the series?
• Can music be an effective way to treat mental illness?
• With e-readers so popular, have libraries become obsolete?
• Are the Harry Potter books more popular than they deserve to be?
• Should music with offensive language come with a warning label?
• What’s the best way for museums to get more people to visit?
• Should students be able to substitute an art or music class for a PE class in school?
• Are the Kardashians good or bad role models for young people?
• Should people in higher income brackets pay more taxes?
• Should all high school students be required to take a class on financial literacy?
• Is it possible to achieve the American dream, or is it only a myth?
• Is it better to spend a summer as an unpaid intern at a prestigious company or as a paid worker at a local store/restaurant?
• Should the United States impose more or fewer tariffs?
• Should college graduates have their student loans forgiven?
• Should restaurants eliminate tipping and raise staff wages instead?
• Should students learn cursive writing in school?
• Which is more important: PE class or music class?
• Is it better to have year-round school with shorter breaks throughout the year?
• Should class rank be abolished in schools?
• Should students be taught sex education in school?
• Should students be able to attend public universities for free?
• What’s the most effective way to change the behavior of school bullies?
• Are the SAT and ACT accurate ways to measure intelligence?
• Should students be able to learn sign language instead of a foreign language?
• Do the benefits of Greek life at colleges outweigh the negatives?
• Does doing homework actually help students learn more?
• Why do students in many other countries score higher than American students on math exams?
• Should parents/teachers be able to ban certain books from schools?
• What’s the best way to reduce cheating in school?
• Should colleges take a student’s race into account when making admissions decisions?
• Should there be limits to free speech?
• Should students be required to perform community service to graduate high school?
• Should convicted felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?
• Should gun ownership be more tightly regulated?
• Should recycling be made mandatory?
• Should employers be required to offer paid leave to new parents?
• Are there any circumstances where torture should be allowed?
• Should children under the age of 18 be able to get plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons?
• Should white supremacy groups be allowed to hold rallies in public places?
• Does making abortion illegal make women more or less safe?
• Does foreign aid actually help developing countries?
• Are there times a person’s freedom of speech should be curtailed?
• Should people over a certain age not be allowed to adopt children?

Government/Politics

• Should the minimum voting age be raised/lowered/kept the same?
• Should Puerto Rico be granted statehood?
• Should the United States build a border wall with Mexico?
• Who should be the next person printed on American banknotes?
• Should the United States’ military budget be reduced?
• Did China’s one child policy have overall positive or negative impacts on the country?
• Should DREAMers be granted US citizenship?
• Is national security more important than individual privacy?
• What responsibility does the government have to help homeless people?
• Should the electoral college be abolished?
• Should the US increase or decrease the number of refugees it allows in each year?
• Should privately-run prisons be abolished?
• Who was the most/least effective US president?
• Will Brexit end up helping or harming the UK?

• What’s the best way to reduce the spread of Ebola?
• Is the Keto diet a safe and effective way to lose weight?
• Should the FDA regulate vitamins and supplements more strictly?
• Should public schools require all students who attend to be vaccinated?
• Is eating genetically modified food safe?
• What’s the best way to make health insurance more affordable?
• What’s the best way to lower the teen pregnancy rate?
• Should recreational marijuana be legalized nationwide?
• Should birth control pills be available without a prescription?
• Should pregnant women be forbidden from buying cigarettes and alcohol?
• Why has anxiety increased in adolescents?
• Are low-carb or low-fat diets more effective for weight loss?
• What caused the destruction of the USS Maine?
• Was King Arthur a mythical legend or actual Dark Ages king?
• Was the US justified in dropping atomic bombs during WWII?
• What was the primary cause of the Rwandan genocide?
• What happened to the settlers of the Roanoke colony?
• Was disagreement over slavery the primary cause of the US Civil War?
• What has caused the numerous disappearances in the Bermuda triangle?
• Should nuclear power be banned?
• Is scientific testing on animals necessary?
• Do zoos help or harm animals?
• Should scientists be allowed to clone humans?
• Should animals in circuses be banned?
• Should fracking be legal?
• Should people be allowed to keep exotic animals as pets?
• What’s the best way to reduce illegal poaching in Africa?
• What is the best way to reduce the impact of global warming?
• Should euthanasia be legalized?
• Is there legitimate evidence of extraterrestrial life?
• Should people be banned from owning aggressive dog breeds?
• Should the United States devote more money towards space exploration?
• Should the government subsidize renewable forms of energy?
• Is solar energy worth the cost?
• Should stem cells be used in medicine?
• Is it right for the US to leave the Paris Climate Agreement?
• Should athletes who fail a drug test receive a lifetime ban from the sport?
• Should college athletes receive a salary?
• Should the NFL do more to prevent concussions in players?
• Do PE classes help students stay in shape?
• Should horse racing be banned?
• Should cheerleading be considered a sport?
• Should children younger than 18 be allowed to play tackle football?
• Are the costs of hosting an Olympic Games worth it?
• Can online schools be as effective as traditional schools?
• Do violent video games encourage players to be violent in real life?
• Should facial recognition technology be banned?
• Does excessive social media use lead to depression/anxiety?
• Has the rise of translation technology made knowing multiple languages obsolete?
• Was Steve Jobs a visionary or just a great marketer?
• Should social media be banned for children younger than a certain age?
• Which 21st-century invention has had the largest impact on society?
• Are ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft good or bad for society?
• Should Facebook have done more to protect the privacy of its users?
• Will technology end up increasing or decreasing inequality worldwide?

Tips for Writing a Strong Persuasive Essay

After you’ve chosen the perfect topic for your persuasive essay, your work isn’t over. Follow the three tips below to create a top-notch essay.

Do Your Research

Your argument will fall apart if you don’t fully understand the issue you’re discussing or you overlook an important piece of it. Readers won’t be convinced by someone who doesn’t know the subject, and you likely won’t persuade any of them to begin supporting your viewpoint. Before you begin writing a single word of your essay, research your topic thoroughly. Study different sources, learn about the different sides of the argument, ask anyone who’s an expert on the topic what their opinion is, etc. You might be tempted to start writing right away, but by doing your research, you’ll make the writing process much easier when the time comes.

Make Your Thesis Perfect

Your thesis is the most important sentence in your persuasive essay. Just by reading that single sentence, your audience should know exactly what topic you’ll be discussing and where you stand on the issue. You want your thesis to be crystal clear and to accurately set up the rest of your essay. Asking classmates or your teacher to look it over before you begin writing the rest of your essay can be a big help if you’re not entirely confident in your thesis.

Consider the Other Side

You’ll spend most of your essay focusing on your side of the argument since that’s what you want readers to come away believing. However, don’t think that means you can ignore other sides of the issue. In your essay, be sure to discuss the other side’s argument, as well as why you believe this view is weak or untrue. Researching all the different viewpoints and including them in your essay will increase the quality of your writing by making your essay more complete and nuanced.

Summary: Persuasive Essay Ideas

Good persuasive essay topics can be difficult to come up with, but in this guide we’ve created a list of 113 excellent essay topics for you to browse. The best persuasive essay ideas will be those that you are interested in, have enough evidence to support your argument, and aren’t too complicated to be summarized in an essay.

After you’ve chosen your essay topic, keep these three tips in mind when you begin writing:

• Do your research
• Make your thesis perfect
• Consider the other side

What's Next?

Need ideas for a research paper topic as well? Our guide to research paper topics has over 100 topics in ten categories so you can be sure to find the perfect topic for you.

Thinking about taking an AP English class? Read our guide on AP English classes to learn whether you should take AP English Language or AP English Literature (or both!)

Deciding between the SAT or ACT? Find out for sure which you will do the best on . Also read a detailed comparison between the two tests .

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.7: Writing a Persuasive Essay

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6453

• Amber Kinonen, Jennifer McCann, Todd McCann, & Erica Mead
• Bay College Library

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Choose a topic that you feel passionate about. If your instructor requires you to write about a specific topic, approach the subject from an angle that interests you. Begin your essay with an engaging introduction. Your thesis should typically appear near the end of your introduction.

Make your appeals in support of your thesis by using sound, credible evidence. Use a balance of facts and opinions from a wide range of sources, such as scientific studies, expert testimony, statistics, and personal anecdotes. Each piece of evidence should be fully explained and clearly stated.

Acknowledge and explain points of view that may conflict with your own to build credibility and trust with your audience. Also state the limits of your argument. This, too, helps you sound more reasonable and honest to those who may naturally be inclined to disagree with your view. By respectfully acknowledging opposing arguments and conceding limitations to your own view, you set a measured and responsible tone for the essay.

Make sure that your style and tone are appropriate for your subject and audience. Tailor your language and word choice to these two factors, while still being true to your own voice.

Finally, write a conclusion that effectively summarizes the main argument and reinforces your thesis.

key takeaways

• The purpose of persuasion in writing is to convince or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion.
• An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue, in writing, is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way.
• A thesis that expresses the opinion of the writer in more specific terms is better than one that is vague.
• It is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.
• It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish through a concession statement.
• To persuade a skeptical audience, you will need to use a wide range of evidence from credible sources. Scientific studies, opinions from experts, historical precedent, statistics, personal anecdotes, and current events are all types of evidence that you might use in explaining your point.
• Make sure that your word choice and writing style is appropriate for both your subject and your audience.
• You should let your reader know your bias, but do not let that bias blind you to the primary components of good argumentation: sound, thoughtful evidence and respectfully and reasonably addressing opposing ideas.
• You should be mindful of the use of I in your writing because it can make your argument sound more biased than it needs to.
• Facts are statements that can be proven using objective data.
• Opinions are personal views, or judgments, that cannot be proven.
• In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions.
• Quantitative visuals present data graphically. The purpose of using quantitative visuals is to make logical appeals to the audience.
• Qualitative visuals present images that appeal to the audience’s emotions.

Examples of Essays

• “The Case Against Torture,” by Alisa Solomon
• “The Case for Torture,” by Michael Levin
• “Supporting Family Values,” by Linda Chavez
• “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide,” by Charles Colson
• “Waste Not, Want Not,” by Bill McKibben
• “Forget Shorter Showers” by Derrick Jensen
• “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” by Ann-Marie Slaughter
• “Having it All?’ How About; ‘Doing the Best I Can?’” by Andrew Cohen
• “Against Headphones” by Virgina Heffernan
• “I Have a Dream,” by Martin Luther King Jr.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay Examples

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

10 min read

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you looking to improve your persuasive writing skills?

One of the best ways to do that is by reading persuasive essay examples. These examples can show you how to structure your arguments effectively.

But finding good examples can be a challenge. Don't worry, though – we've gathered some helpful persuasive essays for you right here!

So, if you're in search of persuasive essay examples to help you write your own, you're in the right place. 

Keep reading this blog to explore various examples!

• 1. Persuasive Essay Examples For Students
• 2. Persuasive Writing Example For Elementary Schools
• 3. Persuasive Essay Examples Middle School
• 4. Persuasive Essay Examples High School
• 5. Persuasive Essay Examples for College Students 
• 6. Persuasive Essay Examples For University
• 7. Persuasive Essay Examples for Different Formats
• 8. Basic Persuasive Essay Structure  
• 9. Catchy Persuasive Essay Topics

Persuasive Essay Examples For Students

A persuasive essay aims to convince the reader of the author’s point of view. 

To find the right path for your essay, it's helpful to go through some examples. Similarly, good essay examples also help to avoid any potential pitfalls and offer clear information to the readers to adopt.

Let’s take a look at 2 short persuasive essay examples, focusing on current and relevant issues:

Example 1: 

If you are looking for longer examples, below are some persuasive essay examples pdf for different academic levels. Read them for free.

Persuasive Writing Example For Elementary Schools

Here are provided some sample essays to further explain the concept of persuasive writing for students.

3rd-grade Persuasive Essay Example

4th-grade Persuasive Essay Example

Persuasive Essay Example 5th-grade

Persuasive Essay Examples Middle School

Check out these persuasive essay examples for middle school to get a comprehensive idea of the format structure. 

Persuasive Essay Examples for 6th Grade

7th-grade Persuasive Essay Example

8th-grade Persuasive Essay Example

Persuasive Essay Examples High School

The following are good persuasive essay examples for high school. Having a look at them will help you understand better.

Persuasive Essay Examples Grade 10

High-school Persuasive Essay Example

Examples of Persuasive Essay in Everyday Life

Persuasive Essay Examples for College Students 

Essay writing at the college level becomes more complicated. We have provided you with top-notch college persuasive and argumentative essay examples here. Read them to understand the essay writing process easily. 

11th-grade Persuasive Essay Example

Persuasive Essay Examples College

Higher English Persuasive Essay Example

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Argumentative and Persuasive Examples

Persuasive Essay Examples For University

It becomes even more challenging to draft a perfect essay at the university level. Look at the examples of persuasive essays below to get an idea of writing one.

University Persuasive Essay Example

Political Persuasive Essay Examples

Persuasive Essay Examples About Life

Persuasive Essay Examples for Different Formats

A persuasive essay can be written in several formats. For instance, you can write the usual 5-paragraph essay, or even something longer or shorter.

Below are a few sample essays in various common formats.

Persuasive Essay Examples 5 Paragraph

Persuasive Essay Examples 3 Paragraph

These examples tell you how to remain convincing and persuasive regardless of the essay format you use.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job

Basic Persuasive Essay Structure  

Here's a breakdown of the typical persuasive essay outline , along with an example for each step:

• Introduction (Grab Attention & Introduce the Issue):

Hook your reader with an interesting fact, anecdote, or question-related to the topic. Briefly introduce the issue you'll be arguing for.

For Example:

• Thesis Statement (Clearly State Your Position):

The thesis statement is a one-sentence summary of your entire argument. It should be clear, concise, and specific, and include your main points.

• Body Paragraphs (Develop Your Arguments):

Dedicate each paragraph to a single main point supporting your thesis. Use strong evidence to back up your claims. This can include statistics, research findings, expert opinions, or personal anecdotes. Use clear transitions between paragraphs to show the flow of your argument.

• Counterargument (Acknowledge Opposing Views):

Briefly acknowledge potential objections to your argument. This shows you've considered different viewpoints and strengthens your own position.

• Rebuttal (Address Counterarguments):

Explain why the counterarguments are not strong enough to invalidate your main points. Offer additional evidence to solidify your position.

• Conclusion (Restate & Call to Action):

Briefly restate your thesis and summarize your main points. End with a strong call to action, urging the reader to adopt your perspective or take a specific step.

By following this structure and incorporating strong evidence, you can craft a persuasive essay that effectively convinces your reader to see things your way.

Catchy Persuasive Essay Topics

Now that you have read some good examples, it's time to write your own persuasive essay.

But what should you write about? You can write persuasive essays about any topic, from business and online education to controversial topics like abortion, gun control, and more.

Here is a list of ten persuasive essay topics that you can use to grab your reader's attention and make them think:

• Should the government increase taxes to fund public health initiatives?
• Is the current education system effective in preparing students for college and the workplace?
• Should there be tighter gun control laws?
• Should schools have uniforms or a dress code?
• Are standardized tests an accurate measure of student performance?
• Should students be required to take physical education courses?
• Is undocumented immigration a legitimate cause for concern in the United States?
• Is affirmative action still necessary in today’s society?
• How much, if any, regulation should there be on technology companies?
• Is the death penalty an appropriate form of punishment for serious crimes?

Need more topic ideas? Check out our extensive list of unique persuasive essay topics and get started!

To Sum it Up!

This post gave you a bunch of persuasive essay examples to check out. By reading them, you learned how to build strong arguments, organize your essay, and use evidence to back up your ideas.

Now it's your time to write! Don't worry about being perfect, just give it a shot and make it your own. But if you're still feeling stuck, don't worry. 

Our persuasive essay writing service is here to the rescue!

Our experienced writers specialize in creating top-notch essays on a wide range of topics. Whether it's a challenging persuasive essay or any other type, we've got you covered.

Take advantage of our paper writing service today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Persuasive Writing

Ai generator.

Writing has, is, and will always be a part of every human’s life. In our lives, we have already experienced writing a lot: essays, reports, theses, etc. And in those times, each one of us can always come up with a lot of ideas to write about: ideas for creative writing, ideas for fiction writing , etc.

Writer or not, each person will, at some point in their lives, be able to experience writing something or simply wanting to write something. At times like this, writers may find writing in first person quite easy. This can be observed in diary entries, reaction writing papers , and in some novels.

1. College Persuasive Writing Example

2. Teaching Persuasive Writing Example

3. Professional Persuasive Example

What Is Persuasive Writing?

Persuasive writing is among the four main types of writing. Usually, the writer’s purpose is to persuade the readers to agree with his/her opinion on a certain issue/topic. They present persuasive arguments supported by facts, and counterarguments, balancing the presentation of both sides of the argument of business writing . An effective piece carefully rebuts counter arguments with strong facts and opinions, while convincing the readers that the writer’s claim is unbiased. The writer can either encourage a call to action, or simply present strong opinions to the readers.

How to Plan Persuasive Writing

You want your readers to hear you out, fine. But first you need to plan out your plan template . Here are some steps on how to plan persuasive writing.

• Pick a side. Know which side you are on. If you’re neutral, toss a coin (I’m serious). And stick to your side.
• Research . Research well. Know your side of the argument like the back of your hand. Know the other side of the argument like the back of your other hand. Never argue with something you have no knowledge of.
• Know your readers.  This will help you understand the mindset of your readers and write an article writing which appeals to them.

4. Legal Persuasive Writing Example

5. Business Persuasive Example

Size: 452 KB

6. Persuasive Essay Writing Example

7. Persuasive Writing for Middle And High School Example

Size: 15 KB

8. Basic Persuasive Writing Example

9. Persuasive Writing Outline

Size: 170 KB

10. 5th Grade Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 164 KB

11. 6th Grade Persuasive Writing Example

12. 4th Grade Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 31 KB

13. 9 Grade Persuasive Writing Example

14. 3 Grade Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 311 KB

15. Year 7 Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 106 KB

16. High School Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 284 KB

17. Persuasive Writing Paragraph Example

18. 7 Grade Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 53 KB

19. Persuasive Writing Structure Example

Size: 563 KB

20. Persuasive Letter Writing Example

Size: 104 KB

21. Persuasive Writing Graphic Organizer Example

Size: 110 KB

22. Persuasive Text Writing Example

Size: 270 KB

23. Persuasive Poster Writing Example

Size: 32 KB

24. Persuasive Speech Writing Example

Size: 221 KB

25. Persuasive Rubric Writing Example

Size: 74 KB

26. Persuasive Writing Conclusion Example

Size: 27 KB

27. 2nd Grade Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 691 KB

28. Persuasive Writing Layout Example

Size: 188 KB

29. Free Persuasive Writing Example

Size: 175 KB

30. Lesson Plans for Persuasive Essay Writing Example

Size: 493 KB

31. Persuasive Writing Revision Example

Size: 242 KB

Importance of Persuasive Writing

Persuasive writing may be intended for both commercial and non-commercial usage. Basically, the writer’s purpose is to persuade the readers. However, persuasive writing, for non-commercial purposes, can also be considered a “ summary writing ” of both sides of the argument. Also, people need to consider a second opinion. It is always better to know other people’s opinions, not to be influenced by them, but to look at the matter from another angle. For commercial purposes, persuasive writing can be used to gain the attention of the audience about a certain product or service.

Tips for Persuasive Writing

For your convenience, this article provides writing examples in .doc format. But if you want to write your own, here are some tips to consider:

• Present unbiased opinions. As much as you want to convince your readers, be objective and avoid writing overly-biased opinions.
• Use facts well.  You’ve done your research, use it to support your claims. But, falsifying of information will affect your credibility as a writer.
• Be organized.  Organize your writing. Present arguments clearly. Do not confuse your readers with too much information.
• Cite your sources.  Give credits to the people who deserve them. This is your way of thanking them for providing you the facts you needed.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life

This essay about microaggressions discusses their subtle yet harmful impact on daily interactions. It explains how these covert acts, fueled by historical prejudice, erode respect and understanding. The essay emphasizes the importance of mindfulness, empathy, and courage in recognizing and addressing microaggressions. It highlights the shared responsibility of society, especially allies, in challenging oppressive behaviors and fostering inclusive, equitable environments. The essay calls for a shift in societal consciousness to achieve true equality and respect for all individuals.

How it works

In the delicate dance of human interaction, microaggressions perform subtle, often unnoticed steps, leaving behind emotional scars. These covert yet powerful acts weave through daily life, burdened by historical prejudice and bias, weakening the fragile bonds of mutual respect and understanding. Recognizing and addressing microaggressions requires a fusion of mindfulness, empathy, and the bravery to challenge societal norms.

Microaggressions, resembling tiny barbs embedded in everyday conversations, manifest in various forms, each carrying a distinct sting of discrimination. Whether as overt as a racial slur or as understated as a dismissive look, their impact is profound, undermining the sense of belonging and dignity of those they target.

A seemingly harmless comment such as “You’re surprisingly articulate for someone like you” is laden with implicit bias, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and dismissing individual achievements.

Navigating the complex web of microaggressions requires acute awareness and a willingness to speak out against inequity. It demands confronting discomfort head-on and challenging oppressive behaviors whenever they emerge. This involves creating spaces for difficult conversations and holding ourselves and others accountable for the impact of our words and actions.

Importantly, the responsibility of addressing microaggressions does not lie solely with the victims; it is a shared duty that calls for the active engagement of all societal members. Allies, who stand in solidarity with marginalized communities, are crucial in dismantling oppressive structures and advocating for meaningful change.

At its core, addressing microaggressions requires a societal shift in consciousness. It necessitates recognizing that seemingly benign words and actions can cause significant harm and that genuine equality can only be achieved through a steadfast commitment to empathy and understanding.

In summary, recognizing and confronting microaggressions is not only a moral imperative but also an essential step towards creating a more inclusive and just society. By nurturing mindfulness, empathy, and the courage to challenge injustice, we can begin to dismantle the systems of oppression that sustain discrimination, fostering a world where every individual is valued and respected, regardless of their race, gender, or any other facet of their identity.

Cite this page

Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/

"Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/ [Accessed: 27 May. 2024]

"Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/

"Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/. [Accessed: 27-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Recognizing and Addressing Microaggressions in Everyday Life . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/recognizing-and-addressing-microaggressions-in-everyday-life/ [Accessed: 27-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

What Is a Capstone Project vs. Thesis

As students near the end of their academic journey, they encounter a crucial project called the capstone – a culmination of all they've learned. But what exactly is a capstone project? 

This article aims to demystify capstone projects, explaining what they are, why they matter, and what you can expect when you embark on this final academic endeavor.

Capstone Project Meaning

A capstone project is a comprehensive, culminating academic endeavor undertaken by students typically in their final year of study. 

It synthesizes their learning experiences, requiring students to apply the knowledge, skills, and competencies gained throughout their academic journey. A capstone project aims to address a real-world problem or explore a topic of interest in depth. 

As interdisciplinary papers, capstone projects encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. They allow students to showcase their mastery of their field of study and demonstrate their readiness for future academic or professional pursuits.

Now that we’ve defined what is a capstone project, let’s discuss its importance in the academic landscape. In case you have short-form compositions to handle, simply say, ‘ do my essay for me ,’ and our writers will take care of your workload.

Why Is a Capstone Project Important

A capstone project is crucial because it allows students to combine everything they've learned in school and apply it to real-life situations or big problems. 

It's like the ultimate test of what they know and can do. By working on these projects, students get hands-on experience, learn to think critically and figure out how to solve tough problems. 

Plus, it's a chance to show off their skills and prove they're ready for whatever comes next, whether that's starting a career or going on to more schooling.

Never Written Capstones Before?

Professional writers across dozens of subjects can help you right now.

What Is the Purpose of a Capstone Project

Here are three key purposes of a capstone project:

Integration of Knowledge and Skills

Capstones often require students to draw upon the knowledge and skills they have acquired throughout their academic program. The importance of capstone project lies in helping students synthesize what they have learned and apply it to a real-world problem or project. 

This integration helps students demonstrate their proficiency and readiness for graduation or entry into their chosen profession.

Culmination of Learning

Capstone projects culminate a student's academic journey, allowing them to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios. 

tackling a significant project or problem, students demonstrate their understanding of concepts and their ability to translate them into practical solutions, reinforcing their learning journey.

Professional Development

Capstone projects allow students to develop skills relevant to their future careers. These projects can also be tangible examples of their capabilities to potential employers or graduate programs.

Whether it's conducting research, presenting findings, or collaborating with peers, students gain valuable experience that enhances their professional readiness. 

Types of Capstone Projects

Capstones vary widely depending on the academic discipline, institution, and specific program requirements. Here are some common types:

What Is the Difference Between a Thesis and a Capstone Project

Here's a breakdown of the key differences between a thesis and a capstone project:

How to Write a Capstone Project

Let's dive into the specifics with actionable and meaningful steps for writing a capstone project:

1. Select a Pertinent Topic

Identify a topic that aligns with your academic interests, program requirements, and real-world relevance. Consider issues or challenges within your field that merit further exploration or solution. 

Conduct thorough research to ensure the topic is both feasible and significant. Here are some brilliant capstone ideas for your inspiration.

2. Define Clear Objectives

Clearly articulate the objectives of your capstone project. What specific outcomes do you aim to achieve? 

Whether it's solving a problem, answering a research question, or developing a product, ensure your objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

3. Conduct Comprehensive Research

Dive deep into existing literature, theories, and empirical evidence related to your chosen topic. Identify gaps, controversies, or areas for further investigation. 

Synthesize relevant findings and insights to inform the development of your project and provide a solid foundation for your analysis or implementation.

4. Develop a Structured Plan

What is a capstone project in college without a rigid structure? Outline a comprehensive plan for your capstone project, including key milestones, tasks, and deadlines. 

Break down the project into manageable phases, such as literature review, data collection, analysis, and presentation. Establish clear criteria for success and regularly monitor progress to stay on track.

5. Implement Methodological Rigor

If your project involves research, ensure methodological rigor by selecting appropriate research methods, tools, and techniques. 

Develop a detailed research design or project plan that addresses key methodological considerations, such as sampling, data collection, analysis, and validity. Adhere to ethical guidelines and best practices throughout the research process.

6. Analyze and Interpret Findings

Analyze your data or findings using appropriate analytical techniques and tools. Interpret the results in relation to your research questions or objectives, highlighting key patterns, trends, or insights. 

Critically evaluate the significance and implications of your findings within the broader context of your field or industry.

7. Communicate Effectively

Present your capstone project clearly, concisely, and compellingly. Whether it's a written report, presentation, or multimedia deliverable, tailor your communication style to your target audience. Clearly articulate your research questions, methodology, findings, and conclusions. 

Use visuals, examples, and real-world applications to enhance understanding and engagement. Be prepared to defend your project and answer questions from peers, faculty, or stakeholders.

In wrapping up, what is a capstone project? It’s like the grand finale of your academic journey, where all the knowledge and skills you've acquired come together in one big project. 

It's not just about passing a test or getting a grade – it's about proving you've got what it takes to make a real difference in the world. So, if you ever need capstone project help , our writers will gladly lend you a hand in no time.

Due Date Is Just Around the Corner?

Streamline the writing progress with our expert service!

What Is a Capstone Project in College?

How to do a capstone project, how long does a capstone project take to complete.

Annie Lambert

specializes in creating authoritative content on marketing, business, and finance, with a versatile ability to handle any essay type and dissertations. With a Master’s degree in Business Administration and a passion for social issues, her writing not only educates but also inspires action. On EssayPro blog, Annie delivers detailed guides and thought-provoking discussions on pressing economic and social topics. When not writing, she’s a guest speaker at various business seminars.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

• T. (2023, June 16). What Is a Capstone Project? National University. https://www.nu.edu/blog/what-is-a-capstone-project/
• Lukins, S. (2024, May 12). What is a capstone project? And why is it important? Top Universities. https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/careers-advice-articles/what-capstone-project-why-it-important
• Capstone Project vs. Thesis: What’s the Difference? (2021, December 9). UAGC. https://www.uagc.edu/blog/capstone-project-vs-thesis-whats-difference

Related Articles

Persuasive Advertising Examples To Inspire Your Next Campaign

One of the main roles of an advertiser is to persuade a specific audience to make a decision, whether it’s to complete a purchase, click on and watch a video, or sign up for a monthly newsletter. However, persuasive advertising doesn’t work like a hypnotist trying to put their customer in a trance. 

There’s no way an advertiser can talk someone into being interested in a brand just by saying “You are becoming very interested in SEO marketing services.” Marketers have to actually pay attention to their audience’s emotions and goals to successfully persuade them. 

So how does it actually work? Well, we’re here to solve the mystery — show you what’s behind the curtain, if you will. Want to learn the art of persuasive marketing for your next campaign? Let’s get this show on the road.

What Is Persuasive Advertising?

Persuasive advertising is a type of marketing that focuses on the target audience’s emotions, rather than specs or value propositions, to convince them to do something. It’s designed to shine a light on the benefits the brand can offer the end user rather than the actual make, model or efficiencies of the product itself. 

Persuasive Advertising vs. Informative Advertising

While persuasive and informative advertising have the same goal — to get consumers to complete a desired action — they achieve that target differently. Persuasive advertising uses various techniques to convince the audience of a certain belief that leads to a purchase. Informative advertising uses facts and figures to educate consumers on why their brand is the best choice. For example, a software company may update potential users on new features and functions and how they increase efficiency and performance. 

Benefits of Persuasive Advertising in Marketing

Do you want to make your advertising more persuasive and effective? While all types of marketing have a time and place, here are some advantages to using this approach for your brand:

• Improved brand awareness: Engaging and compelling marketing campaigns may resonate with the target audience, leaving a lasting impression and increasing brand recall.
• Enhanced customer loyalty and experience: Building strong relationships with customers by focusing on their emotions and tangible needs can foster loyalty and repeat business. When customers have positive experiences with a brand, they’re more likely to become brand advocates. In fact, Deloitte found that customers who have a positive experience will spend 140% more than those who have a negative one. 
• Competitive edge: Effective persuasive marketing differentiates a brand from competitors and positions it as a preferred choice among consumers. 

Persuasive Advertising Techniques

Carrot and the stick.

Like a horse chasing after a carrot, people are hardwired to move toward things they desire. On the flip side, we’re also prone to move away from pain and hardship. This approach is meant to showcase your ad as the carrot, offering the prospect potential feelings of pleasure. Sticks are the possibilities of loss, which can also be used to make the prospect fearful of pain and go in the other direction. Both the carrot and stick approaches can make potential customers feel emotions that inspire action. 

Bandwagon Appeal

Bandwagons are popular for a reason. Products and services are more appealing when a crowd of people can vouch for their advantages. I mean, would you rather go to a restaurant that has a long line and great reviews or the establishment that’s oddly quiet? Besides being extremely hungry and in need of a meal pronto, you most likely would want to go to the place everyone else is trying to eat at. Social proof — or showing that your brand is widely liked — shows that your company is respected and can be trusted. 

Subscribe to The Content Marketer

Get weekly insights, advice and opinions about all things digital marketing.

Thank you for subscribing to The Content Marketer!

The Scarcity Principle

If supply and demand principles have taught you anything, it’s most likely that rare objects and experiences are valuable. In your advertising efforts, when you use words like “exclusive” and “limited availability,” people may become more interested in what you’re selling. 

Product Comparison

As the name suggests, product comparison takes your brand and a close competitor’s offering and puts them head to head, focusing on a particular emotional response or benefit that the user will receive. 

Let’s say you’re an eReader company looking to boost sales. Using this persuasive technique, you’d compare your product with another top seller in your industry by looking at the battery life. But instead of talking about the actual battery power, you’d highlight your product’s ability to let your customers read for longer periods of time without needing to pause and find an outlet; whereas the other company’s product may only allow half the reading time in between charging. 

Almost everyone loves comedic relief, making humor a positive advertising move when you want to bring people joy. Often, people share funny marketing campaigns with their friends and family, boosting these ads’ popularity and views. 

Second Person

A potential customer cares about what you’re going to do for them, meaning using pronouns like “you and “your” can make your messaging feel as if it’s speaking directly to them. For example, which one sounds more personable?

“Increase your user engagement with SEO content marketing solutions designed for your industry.”

“Businesses can increase their user engagement with SEO content marketing solutions designed for their industry.”

The first example can help readers insert themselves into the narrative you’re creating, making it easier for them to picture benefiting from your services. 

It’s common knowledge that if you hear the same word or phrase over and over again, you’re more likely to remember and believe it. If you read a blog that consistently talks about the brand’s top-notch customer service, you’ll take away that the company knows how to treat its users. Whether this is true doesn’t necessarily matter at that moment because the reader may believe it until proven otherwise. 

Plain Folks

The plain folk advertising technique is a way for advertisers to promote products using ordinary, everyday people, showing that it offers a value that anyone could benefit from, whether by featuring photos of “plain” people in campaigns or sharing stories of normal people using the product. 

Snob Appeal

On the other hand, the snob appeal technique indicates that the product makes the consumer better, smarter or richer than everyone else, drawing in a particular type of person as their audience. Take a luxury car company for example: People may be drawn to the rarity of owning this particular car because it allows them to make assumptions about them just by being associated with the brand. 

Types of Persuasive Ads

Aristotle wasn’t a marketer by any stretch of the imagination. However, he did come up with a theory for how persuasion happens: Either through the character (ethos) of the speaker, the emotional state (pathos) of the hearer or the argument (logos) itself. 

Let’s dive into these three types of persuasion a bit deeper: 

• Ethos Ads: Appeal to the credibility, authority and trustworthiness of the brand, spokesperson or endorser. These ads aim to persuade by establishing a positive perception of the company’s character or level of expertise. 
• Pathos Ads: Focus on the emotions of the audience, aiming to make them have feelings that influence decisions. Ads of this nature will often create content that taps into happiness, fear, nostalgia or empathy. 
• Logos Ads: Look at reason, logic and rational thinking as the main drive to persuade the audience. These ads often emphasize the product’s features, benefits and unique selling points. 

7 Persuasive Advertising Examples

What do these types of persuasive ads and techniques look like in practice? If you want real-world samples, you’re in luck. We have several examples of successful marketing campaigns using these methods:

1. Miller Lite

Miller Lite uses a product comparison to showcase how they offer a beer with half the carbs of Bud Light. This uses peoples’ desire to be healthier as a way to put their product above the competition. This post got a lot of attention on social platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) from people looking for the drink they love without all the carbs. 

We don’t know if Heinz is a fan of Ed Sheeran, but he’s definitely a fan of Heinz. At least, that’s the approach of a hilarious commercial for the beloved ketchup brand. It used humor and the bandwagon effect to promote its product. I mean, if Ed Sheeran likes it, you’re bound to, right? 

3. Old Spice

In just 30 seconds, Old Spice tells viewers that if their partner used the brand’s body wash, they would offer them tickets to “that thing they love,” a boat or even diamonds. Using both the snob appeal and the carrot and stick advertising technique, this campaign states Old Spice can turn anyone into “the man your man could smell like.” 

Airbnb found out that its users want to live like locals while on vacation. They created a campaign spurring people to not just go there, but live there, focusing on the frustration of being a tourist and dealing with large crowds. It highlighted how Airbnb is the solution for people wanting a more authentic travel experience. 

5. Wonderbox

Wonderbox is a French company that creates experiential gifts. It leveraged Spotify for an audio ad campaign focused on “out-of-the-box” gift-giving during the holiday season. The company used its marketing efforts to persuade people that presenting loved ones with special experiences is more meaningful than things that can be wrapped. 

6. Budweiser

Budweiser is known for tugging on people’s heartstrings (remember the puppy and horse commercial?). Its 2017 Super Bowl Commercial focused on an emotional story of how the company’s idea came to fruition. The inspiring video ends with the line, “When nothing stops your dream, this is the beer we drink,” making even the toughest person get a little teary-eyed. 

Clorox understands the power of the plain folks and bandwagon techniques with an ad that simply states its product is “trusted by moms.” Whether someone is a new mom or is a pro with adult children, seeing an ad like this will feel personal and trustworthy, especially for people needing a cleaning solution ASAP.

Put Your Persuasive Techniques to the Test

Now that you know the secrets to persuasive ad creation, there’s nothing stopping you from mesmerizing potential customers. But rather than using pendulum watches and hypnotic swirling screens, you can persuade them with content focused on their emotional wants and needs. 

Madelyn Gardner

Share this article

Get our weekly newsletter

Madelyn Gardner is a content writer based in Nashville, Tennessee. Off the clock, she loves being outside, hiking, reading, baking and eating Mexican food — specifically burritos.

Recommended Reading

The 10 Best SaaS Websites in 2024

Discover the best SaaS websites of 2023, and take your business to the next level with the valuable insights and recommendations in this post.

Multilingual Content Marketing Guide for Going Global in 2024

At first sight, multilingual content marketing sounds like a dream come true. Yet another target market where folks just happen to speak another language. More people = more brand awareness = more business, right?  Since you found this blog post, you probably already had a feeling that multilingual SEO is not that easy. Maybe that… Read more »

The Content Marketer

Get the latest content marketing updates delivered directly to your inbox with our weekly newsletter.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Read the Federal Judge’s Ruling

A federal judge temporarily blocked part of a Florida law that criminalized transporting into the state anyone who lacked lawful immigration status, raising new legal questions for other states pursuing similar measures.

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 1 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN/Reid THE FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, V. ASHLEY MOODY, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 30], along with a Memorandum in Support of that Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Memorandum”) [ECF No. 30-1]. For the reasons we outline below, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.² THE FACTS which On May 10, 2023, Governor DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill 1718 (“SB 1718”), amended FLA. STAT. § 787.07 to impose criminal penalties on anyone “who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government 1 This litigation was originally styled The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc., et al. v. Ronald DeSantis, et al., 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN. But, since we've dismissed Governor DeSantis from the case, we hereby ORDER the Clerk of Court to restyle the litigation as follows: The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc., et al. v. Ashley Moody, et al., 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN. 2 The Motion is ripe for resolution. See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Response") [ECF No. 50]; Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Reply") [ECF No. 67].

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 2 of 40 since his or her unlawful entry from another country.” Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment (the "Complaint”) [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 65–66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07). Section 10 of SB 1718 provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (5), a person who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry from another country commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (2) A person commits a separate offense for each individual he or she transports into this state in violation of this section. (3) A person who transports a minor into this state in violation of subsection (1) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) A person who commits five or more separate offenses under this section during a single episode commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) (a) A person with a prior conviction under this section who commits a subsequent violation of this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (b) As used in paragraph (a), the term “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea agreement or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered. (6) Proof that a person knowingly and willfully presented false identification or gave false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting an investigation for a violation of this section gives rise to an inference that such person was aware that the transported individual has entered the United States in violation of the law and had not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry. (7) A person who is arrested for a violation of this section must be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to pretrial release in accordance with chapter 903. Id. 66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07). The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 17, 2023, suing “Defendants Ronald D. DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida, Ashley Moody, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Nicholas B. Cox, Statewide Prosecutor,” and the state attorneys for all twenty of Florida's judicial circuits. Id. at 3. The organizational Plaintiff, the Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc. (the “Farmworker Association" or "FWAF"), is a "grassroots and community-based farmworker membership 2

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 3 of 40 organization" whose mission is to “support and build power among farmworker and rural low-income communities." Id. ¶¶ 15–16. “FWAF serves seasonal workers as well as migrant workers who travel with the seasons to harvest crops. To do so, FWAF's members travel back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year.” Id. ¶ 17. The individual Plaintiffs “belong to mixed-status families, churches, and communities.” Motion to Proceed Anonymously [ECF No. 29] at 1. “Their family members include U.S. citizens, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (‘SIJS') and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applicants, and undocumented immigrants.” Ibid. The Plaintiffs allege that "Section 10 of [SB 1718], Ch. 2023-40, Laws of Fla. (“Section 10°) unconstitutionally criminalizes the act of transporting a broad category of immigrants into Florida." Complaint ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 10 ("This action challenges Section 10 to prevent imminent harm that Plaintiffs and other Floridians, including both U.S. citizens and noncitizens, will suffer as the law goes into effect and is implemented. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to bar such egregious unconstitutional actions from occurring in their communities."). We dismissed Governor DeSantis from this case on December 21, 2023, because we found that (1) the Plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue him, and (2) he was immune from the claims the Plaintiffs advanced in their Complaint. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 84]. On February 9, 2024, we denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously, see Order Denying the Motion to Proceed Anonymously [ECF No. 86], and ordered the Plaintiffs to appear on the Docket using their own names, see Order Requiring Certificates of Interested Parties [ECF No. 87]. After we entered our Order Denying the Motion to Proceed Anonymously, two Plaintiffs— G.D.L. and M.G.—filed Notices of Voluntary Dismissal [ECF Nos. 90–91]. The seven remaining individual Plaintiffs then appeared by name. See Plaintiffs' Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement [ECF No. 92]. In this Order, therefore, we'll use the Plaintiffs' full names, even where their declarations (or the parties' papers) originally referred to them by their initials. 3

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 4 of 40 The Plaintiffs now ask us to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing Section 10 of SB 1718. We held a preliminary-injunction hearing on December 13, 2023, where the parties presented their oral arguments. See Minute Entry [ECF No. 83]; see also Dec. 13, 2023, Hr'g Tr. [ECF No. 85]. This Order follows. THE LAW "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the ‘burden of persuasion' as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (cleaned up). Those four familiar factors are: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest." Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005). A showing of irreparable injury is “the sine qua non of injunctive relief" and is the most important of the four factors. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (cleaned up). To satisfy this standard, the “plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief [must] demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,22 (2008). And a showing of irreparable injury “must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent." Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Chacon v. Granata, 515 F.2d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1975) (“An injunction is appropriate only if the anticipated injury is imminent and irreparable.”). Still, a district court cannot grant a preliminary injunction unless the moving party satisfies all four of the requirements. See Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Because Wreal must meet all four prerequisites to obtain a preliminary injunction, failure to meet even one dooms [his request].”).

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 5 of 40 "[W]here facts are bitterly contested and credibility determinations must be made to decide whether injunctive relief should issue,” district courts must hold an evidentiary hearing on the propriety of injunctive relief. McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1312 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing All Care Nursing Serv., 887 F.2d at 1538 (cleaned up)). At that hearing, the court sits as factfinder. See Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Where conflicting factual information places in serious dispute issues central to a party's claims and much depends upon the accurate presentation of numerous facts, the trial court errs in not holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve these hotly contested issues." (cleaned up)). In our case, we set an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion, at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence and to advance their respective positions. Despite this opportunity, the parties decided not to present any evidence and to proceed only with their written briefings (as supplemented by lengthy oral presentations). See Dec. 13, 2023, Hr'g Tr. at 4:22–24 (“THE COURT: Are you going to put on any evidence at all for any of these motions? [PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor."); see also id. at 5:1 ("THE COURT [referring to defense counsel, who did not object]: So neither are you."); id. at 67:17–19 (“THE COURT: All right. We'll take that up- with no evidence, right, just argument? [PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL]: Correct.”). I. Standing ANALYSIS As a threshold matter, the Defendants contend that all the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek a preliminary injunction here. See Response at 5. We disagree. To establish his standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010). "Where only injunctive relief is sought, only one plaintiff with standing is required." Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1333 5

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 6 of 40 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (emphasis added & cleaned up); see also ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Byrd, 608 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1153 (N.D. Fla. 2022) (Winsor, J.) (“[W]hen multiple plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, only one needs to show standing."); Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439 (2017) (“[W]hen there are multiple plaintiffs[,] [a]t least one plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint." (emphasis added)). In our case, at least one Plaintiff has standing to pursue this preliminary injunction. Take, for example, Andrea Mendoza Hinojosa. She's suffered an injury in fact because she's established “a realistic danger of sustaining direct injury" from "the statute's operation or enforcement.” Ga. Latino All. for Hum. Rts. v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1257 (11th Cir. 2012). In her Declaration, after all, she avers that she's transported undocumented immigrants (and is "100% willing to" continue transporting at least one undocumented immigrant) into the State of Florida, but (she says) she "believe[s] [she] should not have to risk jail time in order to get them life-saving care or to help them attend an appointment with USCIS, or for any other legitimate reason.” Declaration of Andrea Mendoza Hinojosa (the “Mendoza Decl.") [ECF No. 30-4] ¶¶ 14, 17. And her reluctance to engage in conduct she would otherwise have engaged in is sufficient to show an injury in fact. See W. Va. ex rel. Morrisey v. U.S. Dep't of the Treas., 59 F.4th 1124, 1137 (11th Cir. 2023) (“A plaintiff need not 'expose himself to liability' to have standing to challenge the enforcement of a law." (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128–29 (2007))). Ms. Mendoza's injury is also directly traceable to the passage of SB 1718, which she says prevents her from "do[ing] [her] job effectively” and “help[ing] people in [her] community." Mendoza Decl. ¶ 17; see also id. ¶¶ 5, 14, 17 (“Transporting individuals with various immigration statuses, including individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities, is a key part of my job.. SB 1718, however, has made me extremely anxious that my efforts to help [people who have not been inspected by the federal government] may result in significant jail time and prosecution 6

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 7 of 40 for me I operate my nonprofit on a limited budget, and I would face extreme financial hardship if forced to pay for my release on bond or for my criminal defense if I were arrested.”). Finally, Ms. Mendoza's injury would be redressed by an injunction against the enforcement of Section 10 because, with the statute enjoined, her conduct would no longer put her at risk of arrest or prosecution. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 4 (“In many cases, ‘redressability and traceability overlap as two sides of a causation coin."" (quoting Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1159 (10th Cir. 2005))). Carmenza Aragon has likewise established her standing to pursue this injunction. Ms. Aragon planned to drive her undocumented grandson—who has a petition pending for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status from Florida to Georgia to visit family members who live in Georgia. See Declaration of Carmenza Aragon (the “Aragon Decl.") [ECF No. 30-7] ¶¶ 5—6; see also id. ¶ 6 (“My grandson and I traveled to Georgia for a visit with family last October, and we were planning to go again this year.”). She then planned to drive her grandson back from Georgia to Florida. Ibid. Since the passage of SB 1718, however, Ms. Aragon “had to give up [her] trip to Georgia[.]" Id. ¶ 7. And this harm—not being permitted to travel with her grandson to Georgia—is ongoing: “I do not know when we will be able to go back to visit our family. Now that the transport law is in place, I am afraid to travel with my grandson. If I am traveling with him, I could be stopped and arrested for breaking the new transport law if the police believe I am transporting him. That idea fills me with panic . . . . I am getting older, and time with my loved ones is important.” Ibid. Having felt compelled to cancel her trip to see family because she reasonably feared arrest under Section 10—and having been prevented from taking her grandson to Georgia at any time since-Ms. Aragon has shown that she, too, has suffered (and continues to suffer) an injury in fact, even though she hasn't put herself at risk of an actual arrest. As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Taylor v. Polhill: Taylor has sufficiently alleged an injury in fact. Taylor challenges the Pre-Sale Testing Statute's constitutionality, arguing both that the statute violates his right to due process 7

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 8 of 40 and that it is preempted by federal law. In his complaint, Taylor alleges that, prior to giving up his license, he was a state-licensed hearing aid specialist for thirty years and had operated his own hearing aid retail store for over twenty-six years. Taylor also alleges that “[b]ut for Florida's prohibition for dispensing hearing aids without using its required fitting procedures and equipment, [he] would immediately begin dispensing hearing aids.” In other words, the only thing keeping Taylor from dispensing hearing aids is the threat of enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional Pre-Sale Testing Statute. And, as Florida's statutory scheme for dispensing hearing aids has been enforced against Taylor in the past, the chance that it will be enforced against him in the future is not speculative. Taylor is thus put in the position of either refraining from conduct he alleges to be unconstitutionally prohibited or engaging in such conduct and exposing himself to enforcement. The Constitution does not require that Taylor expose himself to enforcement of the statute before he can challenge the statute. Hence, Taylor has properly alleged an injury in fact. 964 F.3d 975, 980-81 (11th Cir. 2020). So, too, here: But for Section 10, Ms. Aragon would be driving her grandson to visit family in Georgia. And we have no reason to think that enforcement of Section 10 is unlikely or merely speculative.³ words: 3 A third Plaintiff, Maria Medrano Rios, has suffered an almost-identical injury in fact. In her I had planned to travel with my family to Texas, so that my children could visit their cousins and so that I could spend time with my brother and sister. I'd spoken to my brother and sister about this trip, and I told my children about it-everyone was very excited... Now, though, we can't take this trip. It is just too big a risk for my children and me. [My daughter] does not have an immigration case, and does not have any immigration status, even though she has applied for DACA. So, I am scared that she is not allowed to be brought back into Florida if we leave. And I don't know whether I can be driven back into Florida either, since I don't have any official status. I have a case in immigration court, where I am working to get immigration protection, and I have a As we'll discuss in more detail later, the Defendants claim that these Plaintiffs lack standing because "the individuals they plan to transport have been ‘inspected" within the meaning of Section 10. Response at 9. They therefore promise that “[t]hese Plaintiffs face no credible threat of prosecution.” Ibid. But the Supreme Court has “warn[ed] against accepting as ‘authoritative' an Attorney General's interpretation of state law when 'the Attorney General does not bind the state courts or local law enforcement authorities." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 940 (2000) (quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 395 (1988)). Since we're “without power to adopt a narrowing construction of a state statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent,” Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 330 (1988) (emphasis added), we think enforcement against the individual Plaintiffs is sufficiently likely to satisfy Article III standing. 8

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 9 of 40 work permit based on this case, but the case is not yet completed. Because of this, I'm fearful that our family could be stopped and arrested coming back home[.] Declaration of Maria Medrano Rios (the “Medrano Rios Decl.") [ECF No. 30-8] ¶¶ 8, 10 (emphasis added). As with Ms. Aragon, the “only thing keeping [Ms. Medrano Rios] from” visiting her family outside of Florida is the looming threat of arrest under Section 10—which the Plaintiffs allege is unconstitutional. See Taylor, 964 F.3d at 980. Since Ms. Medrano Rios has been put in the position of either refraining from conduct she alleges to be unconstitutionally prohibited or engaging in the proscribed conduct and exposing herself to arrest and prosecution, she's established an ongoing injury in fact. See Medrano Rios Decl. ¶ 10 (noting that “I'm fearful”—present tense—“that our family could be stopped and arrested coming back home"). And both Ms. Aragon's and Ms. Medrano Rios's injuries are directly traceable to the passage of SB 1718 and would be redressed by an injunction against Section 10. Resisting, the Defendants argue that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing because their “conduct does not violate the statute.”4 Response at 10. In support of this view, the Defendants offer the following narrowing construction of Section 10: 4 Section 787.07(1) provides that “a person who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has The Defendants also contend that Ms. Mendoza specifically lacks standing because she “offers no concrete plans" to violate Section 10 in the future. Response at 10 (emphasis added). But Article III doesn't require a plaintiff to give us an exact date and time for her plans. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 n.2 (1992) (recognizing that "imminence' is concededly a somewhat elastic concept"). Ms. Mendoza avers that she regularly drives “individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities” into Florida. Mendoza Decl. ¶ 5. She also tells us that she knows a "middle-aged undocumented woman from the state of Yucatan, Mexico," who (when Ms. Mendoza wrote her Declaration) was receiving emergency dialysis in a hospital in Georgia. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. Although Ms. Mendoza was not sure “how long” this woman would be in Georgia, she was “100% willing to transport her to Florida . . to get the care she needs.” Id. ¶¶ 13–14. We think that's sufficiently imminent under the circumstances. See Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1340 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Immediacy is an elastic concept . Plaintiff Houston has traveled to Miami- .... Dade County on a regular basis in the past and expects to do so in the near future.... That is enough[;] Houston has frequently visited the area near the store in the past and will maintain the same frequency in the future." (cleaned up)). 9

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 10 of 40 entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry” commits a felony. . . . [T]he term "inspected" refers to any instance in which the federal government can decide whether to take action against a person. To “inspect" something is to "examine [it] officially," "to look carefully,” or to "make an examination." Inspect, Webster's Third International Dictionary 1170 . . . . "Inspected" thus denotes an opportunity to examine a person, not a final decision on the person's admissibility or legal status. Cf. Matter of G, 3 I. & N. Dec. 136, 138 (BIA 1948) (explaining that being “inspected”" means giving immigration officials an opportunity to question an alien) . Indeed, in federal law, an "inspection" is complete even if no decision is made as to admission. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(2) (discussing referring an alien for further proceedings "[u]pon inspection"); 19 U.S.C. § 1459(a), (d) (requiring individuals arriving in the United States to present themselves “for inspection"); see also Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 293 (BIA 2010) (defining “inspected and admitted” (emphasis added)). And federal law mandates inspections even if a person is encountered in the interior years after unlawful entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) (defining “applicant for admission” to include “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted"); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (requiring all applicants for admission to be inspected). In light of the above, most of Plaintiffs' concerns about § 787.07 are simply misplaced. Visa holders, DACA recipients, and aliens with pending applications for asylum or removal proceedings have all been “inspected” because they have notified the federal government of their presence, and the federal government can decide whether to take immediate action. To be sure, Plaintiffs contest this reading. But in a pre-enforcement challenge, it is enough that the statute “could be read” in the manner offered by the State Defendants. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 413–15[.] Id. at 3-5. The Defendants, in short, insist that the individuals our Plaintiffs want to transport into Florida have "been inspected under § 787.07[.]" Id. at 10; see also id. at 11 ("The person [Ms. Medrano Rios] wishes to transport across state lines is her daughter, who has a pending application with federal authorities for DACA benefits. Under § 787.07, her daughter has been ‘inspected,' and [Ms. Medrano Rios's] conduct would not violate the challenged statute."); ibid. (same as to Ms. Aragon's grandson, “who has a pending petition with federal authorities for a change in status”). On the Defendants' reading of Section 10 of SB 1718, therefore, the conduct of these three Plaintiffs doesn't violate the statute—a reality that deprives them of standing. 10

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 11 of 40 But the Defendants cannot use their own (narrow) construction of Section 10 to defeat the Plaintiffs' standing. In Morrisey, for instance, thirteen states “sued the Treasury Secretary and related officials to challenge a tax offset provision in the American Rescue Plan Act, a coronavirus stimulus package passed by Congress in 2021.” 59 F.4th at 1131–32. The Secretary argued that the “States lack standing to challenge the offset provision because the Secretary has not initiated a recoupment action against any of them.” Id. at 1135. According to the Secretary, “the offset provision does not proscribe the States' conduct because its text makes clear' that States may cut taxes so long as they ‘pay' for a tax cut without using Rescue Plan funds.” Id. at 1137. In the Eleventh Circuit's view, however, “[t]his argument—that the offset provision is clear-goes to the merits of the States' claims, not their standing to raise them.” Ibid. “When we assess standing,” the court explained, “we 'must be careful not to decide the questions on the merits for or against the plaintiff, and must therefore assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims."" Ibid. (quoting Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co., 813 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2016)). Applying this principle, the Circuit came to the same conclusion we reach here: Reviewing the text of the statute for standing purposes, we believe the States have shown that the offset provision arguably proscribes their conduct. The offset provision prohibits states from using federal funds to “either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the[ir] net tax revenue” resulting from a change in state law “during the covered period that reduces any tax . . . or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.” 42 U.S.C. § 802(c)(2)(A). Money is fungible. By prohibiting both direct and "indirect" offsets, the provision arguably proscribes a state from accepting the money if it enacts any tax cut. Id. at 1137-38 (emphases added). And that's consistent with the way courts in our Circuit have treated similar attempts by attorneys general to undermine a plaintiff's standing by offering narrowing interpretations of a statute. See, e.g., Shen v. Simpson, 2023 WL 5517253, at *1, 4 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023) (Winsor, J.) (emphasis added & cleaned up) (“The challenged law, codified at Florida Statutes § 692.201–204, . restricts land purchases by any ‘[f]oreign principal,' which it defines to include anyone who is domiciled in a 11

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 12 of 40 foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.'... The State [d]efendants argue that as a matter of Florida law, none [of the plaintiffs] is domiciled in China because each intends to reside in Florida indefinitely. The relevant issue, though, is whether [p]laintiffs' conduct is ‘arguably. . . proscribed by the new law And [plaintiffs] Shen, Wang, and Liu have shown that they are arguably domiciled in China and risk violating §§ 692.203 and 692.204. The new law, which does not independently define 'domicile,' 'sweeps broadly,' and arguably applies to [p]laintiffs.” (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 162 (2014))); cf. Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 940 (“We cannot accept the Attorney General's narrowing interpretation of [a state] statute. This Court's case law makes clear that we are not to give the Attorney General's interpretative views controlling weight."). As these cases make plain, the government cannot, in its response to a preliminary-injunction request, introduce a novel, narrowing construction of a statute and then demand that we make standing determinations based on that untested, non-binding interpretation. On the contrary, when standing is challenged, we must "assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.” Morrisey, 59 F.4th at 1137. Nor are the Defendants right to say that, “in a pre-enforcement challenge, it is enough that the statute 'could be read' in the manner offered by the State Defendants.” Response at 5 (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 413 (2012)). In Arizona, the Supreme Court invoked the constitutional-avoidance doctrine in resolving the merits of an injunction—not (as here) in assessing the petitioners' standing contentions. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 413–14 (“Some who support the challenge to § 2(B) argue that, in practice, state officers will be required to delay the release of some detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status . . . . But § 2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of § 2(B) instructs officers to make a ‘reasonable' attempt 12

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 13 of 40 to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful."). The standard the Court applied in Arizona is therefore inapposite here. In fact, as we've said, when it comes to standing, a plaintiff need only show that his “intended future conduct is arguably proscribed by the statute.” Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 162 (emphasis added & cleaned up); see also Picard v. Magliano, 42 F.4th 89, 98 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The Supreme Court's opinion in Susan B. Anthony List makes clear that courts are to consider whether the plaintiff's intended conduct is ‘arguably proscribed by the challenged statute, not whether the intended conduct is in fact proscribed."); Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. v. Strain, 65 F.4th 211, 217–18 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[The plaintiff] has standing if its intended action-continuing with its ‘plant-based' labels that use meat-esque words—is arguably proscribed. And here, it is: the Act arguably sweeps broadly enough to capture [the plaintiff's] conduct . . . . While [the plaintiff's] interpretation may not be the best interpretation, the test doesn't require that."). As we've suggested, the conduct of the three Plaintiffs we've discussed above is at least arguably proscribed by Section 10. The Defendants counter that these individual Plaintiffs lack standing because the people they "wish[ ] to transport across state lines" have “pending application[s] with federal authorities,” and “Visa holders, DACA recipients, and aliens with pending applications for asylum or removal proceedings have all been inspected" within the meaning of SB 1718. Response at 4, 11. Specifically, the Defendants suggest that individuals with pending immigration applications have "been inspected' because they have notified the federal government of their presence, and the federal government can decide whether to take immediate action.” Id. at 4. But it's not clear to us that the Defendants' interpretation of Section 10 is the correct one. As the Defendants concede, "[t]o ‘inspect' something is to ‘examine [it] officially,' 'to look carefully,' or to ‘make an examination.” Id. at 3 (quoting Inspect, WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1170 (1993)). And other dictionaries similarly define the verb “inspect” 13

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 14 of 40 to mean (1) “to view closely in critical appraisal"; and (2) “to examine officially.” Inspect, MERRIAM- WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspect (last visited May 21, 2024). “Absent a legislatively supplied definition," as the Defendants note, “we give [words their] 'plain and ordinary meaning' at the time of the statute's enactment, and we often look to contemporaneous dictionaries for evidence of that meaning.” Response at 4 (quoting Tsuji v. Fleet, 366 So. 3d 1020, 1028 (Fla. 2023)). That's a problem for the Defendants here because, as each of these definitions makes clear, the word “inspect” focuses on the actions of (and denotes some examination by) the inspector. He, after all, is the subject who must “examine officially," "look carefully,” “make an examination,” “view closely," etc. By any of these definitions, then, a person who submits an application to the USCIS without any evidence that some inspector actually “examined [it] officially,” “looked [at it] carefully,” or "viewed [it] closely" would appear not to have been “inspected.” To circumvent the plain meaning of the word “inspect,” our Defendants add words and phrases that don't appear in any of the available definitions. So, for instance, they say that the word ““[i]nspecteď . . . denotes an opportunity to examine a person, not a final decision on the person's admissibility or legal status." Response at 4 (emphasis added). But we've seen no definition of “inspect" that includes “an opportunity to examine”—and it's not our role to “add[] to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est).” A. SCALIA & B. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 93 (2012). Had the Florida legislature intended to exclude from the statute's coverage both people who had been inspected and those who had given the examiners an opportunity to inspect them, then the Defendants' arguments would have some merit. But it's our job to interpret the law as it was actually written-not the one the Defendants wish the legislature had promulgated. See Pinares v. United Techs. Corp., 973 F.3d 1254, 1262 (11th Cir. 2020) ("Where [the legislature] knows how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is controlling." (cleaned up)); Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enft, 543 U.S. 335, 341 (2005) (“We do not lightly assume 14

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 15 of 40 that [the legislature] has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply, and our reluctance is even greater when [the legislature] has shown elsewhere in the same statute that it knows how to make such a requirement manifest.”); cf. Savage Servs. Corp. v. United States, 25 F.4th 925, 935 (11th Cir. 2022) (refusing to read into the Oil Pollution Act a waiver of sovereign immunity because the legislature “knows how to waive sovereign immunity when it wants to"). Given that the plain meaning of the word “inspect” denotes careful or official examination, we cannot agree with the Defendants that simply giving USCIS the opportunity to review an application qualifies as an "inspection."5 Since we're here addressing the Defendants' claim that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing— and given the Plaintiffs' plausible reading of the law—we think these three Plaintiffs' conduct is arguably proscribed by Section 10 of SB 1718. We also think that the Farmworker Association has standing to challenge Section 10. “[A]n organization has standing to sue on its own behalf if the defendant's illegal acts impair its ability to engage in its projects by forcing the organization to divert resources to counteract those illegal acts." Fla. State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1165 (11th Cir. 2008). In Browning, the Eleventh Circuit held that the organizational plaintiff had standing because it made a “sufficient showing" that it "will have to divert personnel and time to educating volunteers and voters on compliance with Subsection 6 and . . . [t]hese resources would 5 The Plaintiffs separately note that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has interpreted the word “inspect” to require an in-person interaction with immigration officials. In Matter of Quilantan, for example, the BIA held that “an alien who physically presents herself for questioning and makes no knowing false claim to citizenship [has been] ‘inspected[.]”” 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 293 (BIA 2010) (emphasis added); see also In the Matter of G-, 3 I & N Dec. 136, 138 (BIA 1948) (“[W]e have always held that an alien who physically presents himself for questioning is ‘inspected' even though he volunteers no information and is asked no questions by the immigration authorities." (emphasis added)). While these passages aren't dispositive on the meaning of the word "inspection" as it appears in our statute, they do (like the dictionary definitions quoted above) cast doubt on the Defendants' claim that “aliens with pending applications" have been “inspected” simply “because they have notified the federal government of their presence[.]" Response at 4. 15

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 16 of 40 otherwise be spent on registration drives and election-day education and monitoring.” 522 F.3d at 1165–66. Similarly, in Common Cause, the Circuit found that the NAACP had standing because it "divert[ed] resources from its regular activities to educate and assist [affected individuals] in complying with the [challenged] statute[.]” Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). And, in Georgia Latino, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs had standing because they "diverted resources to educate their members, staff, and volunteers on the consequences of the [challenged] law." 691 F.3d at 1260; see also ibid. (“The enactment of H.B. 87 caused [the plaintiff] [Coalition of Latino Leaders] to receive an increased number of inquiries about the law, forcing it to divert volunteer time and resources to educating affected members of the community and fielding inquiries. As a result, CLL has cancelled citizenship classes to focus on these effects. According to CLL, ‘these problems will only get worse if the bill goes into effect.”” (cleaned up)). from As with the organizational plaintiffs in these cases, the Farmworker Association has shown, through a sworn Declaration from its General Coordinator, that it's had to divert resources away its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in their efforts to comply with Section 10 of SB 1718. See Declaration of Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli (the “Xiuhtecutli Decl.”) [ECF No. 30- 3] ¶ 11(c) (“Since the beginning of 2023, I had intended to increase our agroecology educational work through workshops. However, to do this we need to hire an agroecology coordinator.... Because our resources—both staff time and financial resources—have been diverted to responding to SB 1718, and Section 10 in particular, I have been unable to make this hire."); id. ¶ 34 (“FWAF has [ ] held member meetings regarding SB 1718, including Section 10, and sent out information and communications to its members and the immigrant community. These efforts are outside FWAF's regular activities and have consumed valuable resources. These efforts are () ongoing and continue to drain valuable resources from FWAF that would otherwise go to our core programs encouraging farmworkers' civic participation, advancing and educating the community on agroecology, building 16

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 17 of 40 farmworker coalitions, supporting worker's rights, improving working conditions, and safeguarding farmworkers' health and safety."); id. ¶ 38 (“I anticipate that the community impact of Section 10, including arrests and detentions, will continue to divert FWAF's resources from its core mission of strengthening farmworker communities through its different programs and normal organizing work." (emphasis added)). Given that the Farmworker Association "claim[s] injuries analogous to those present in Common Cause and Browning, we are satisfied that [it] meet[s] the minimum requirements of Article III." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1260.6 We're therefore satisfied that at least one Plaintiff has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 10. II. a. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits Due Process The Plaintiffs say that they're likely to succeed on the merits for two main reasons. First, they argue that "Section 10 [of SB 1718] is preempted" in several ways. Memorandum at 9. Second, they contend that "Section 10 violates the Due Process Clause because it is unconstitutionally vague.” Id. at 17. We'll begin our analysis with the Plaintiffs' due-process argument, which (as we've suggested) we "find to be [their] least persuasive argument[.]” Dec. 13, 2023, Hr‍g Tr. at 80:11–12. The Plaintiffs insist that Section 10 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "because it fails to provide ordinary citizens with notice of the conduct it prohibits and invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Memorandum at 17. In their view: Section 10 makes it a felony to transport into Florida a passenger who "has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry.” Ch. 2023-40, § 10, at 11-12, Laws of Fla. (amending § 787.07(1), (3)-(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022)). But Section 10 does not define what it means to be "inspected” “since” entry. The legislative history of Section 10 indicates that lawmakers sought to use the terms as they are understood in immigration law, but as explained above, immigration law does not contain that category or say what it means. Supra Part I.A.iii. And since people's 6 The Defendants advance several additional arguments about the Farmworker Association's alleged injury, see Response at 6-9, which apply with equal force to the irreparable-harm prong of the preliminary-injunction test. So, we'll address—and reject—those arguments in that section below. 17

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 18 of 40 immigration pathways can take hundreds of different forms, Section 10 leaves Floridians guessing as to which pathways show an “inspection” “since" entry and which ones do not. . . . [C]itizens of ordinary intelligence and law enforcement officers charged with enforcing this law are left with no hope of understanding what Section 10 prohibits and to whom it applies. This, alone, is unconstitutional. But the extremely high stakes of Section 10 which impose mandatory pre-trial criminal detention and felony culpability - make the law's vagueness even more constitutionally intolerable. - Id. at 17, 20. We disagree. Even accepting that the words "inspected” and “since" are subject to some interpretation, we cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their due-process claim because “[t]he mere fact that a statute requires interpretation does not necessarily render it void for vagueness.” Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99, 108 (1st Cir. 2010). And, while "the Constitution tolerates a lesser degree of vagueness in enactments with criminal rather than civil penalties, . . . absolute precision in drafting laws is not demanded.” High Ol Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir. 1982). Instead, “[u]nconstitutionally vague statutes are those which are not subject to reasonable interpretation" whatsoever. United States v. Vincent, 2022 WL 1401463, at *12 (N.D. Ga. May 3, 2022) (cleaned up); see also Indigo Room, Inc. v. City of Fort Myers, 710 F.3d 1294, 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[F]acial vagueness occurs when a statute is utterly devoid of a standard of conduct so that it simply has no core and cannot be validly applied to any conduct . . [I]f persons of reasonable intelligence can derive a core meaning from a statute, then the enactment may validly be applied to conduct within that meaning and the possibility of a valid application necessarily precludes facial invalidity.” (cleaned up)). As we've suggested, Section 10 has at least one reasonable interpretation—that “a person is inspected. if he physically presents himself for questioning.” Reply at 10 (cleaned up). On this interpretation, the Plaintiffs maintain that merely mailing (or emailing) an "application for an immigration benefit” to USCIS does not “mean[ ] a person has been inspected.” Id. at 10 & n.8. 18

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 19 of 40 Because we agree with the Plaintiffs that theirs is a reasonable interpretation of Section 10, we have trouble concluding that the statute is so vague that it fails to put reasonable people on notice of its meaning. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008) (holding that a law is "void for vagueness” if it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement”). In any event, without guidance from Florida's state courts (much less the Florida Supreme Court) on the meaning of Section 10, we hesitate to declare the statute vague—and, therefore, invalid. See Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 22–23 (1973) (“The judgment of federal courts as to the vagueness or not of a state statute must be made in the light of prior state constructions of the statute. For the purpose of determining whether a state statute is too vague and indefinite to constitute valid legislation we must take the statute as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it." (emphasis added & cleaned up)).7 More importantly, the Plaintiffs concede that their own conduct has been criminalized by Section 10. See Motion to Proceed Anonymously at 13 (“[The Plaintiffs] engage in and, in the future, intend to engage in activity that Florida has newly criminalized—that is, driving or traveling with their noncitizen family members or members of the communities they serve into Florida.... Under Section 10 of SB 1718, this activity exposes them to mandatory arrest and detention [and] prosecution on 7 The Plaintiffs add that “Florida legislators rejected numerous amendments that would have replaced ‘inspected' with clearer language," including language that would have replaced the phrase “has not been inspected by the Federal Government" with the phrase “has not contacted an official or office of the United States government in person, virtually or by telephone or email.” Memorandum at 18– 19. They say that the "statutory history and legislative history of Section 10 further highlight the incoherence of inspected' in this statute." Id. at 18. But this presumes that the Defendants' interpretation of the statute-as proscribing the interstate travel only of individuals who either have been inspected or have given the government an opportunity to inspect them—is the correct one. As we've indicated, we're quite skeptical of this construction. In any event, the fact that the Florida legislature could have “chosen clearer and more precise language equally capable of achieving [its objective] does not mean that the statute which it in fact drafted is unconstitutionally vague." United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 94 (1975) (cleaned up). 19

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 20 of 40 felony charges[.]”); Memorandum at 20 (“Individual Plaintiffs and FWAF members transport into Florida family members, co-workers, and others who entered unlawfully and who likely have not been 'inspected' for purposes of Section 10, in possible violation of the law Under the broad language of Section 10, Plaintiffs and FWAF members face arrest, prosecution, mandatory detention, and family separation."). Since the “statutory provision at issue clearly proscribes some conduct in which the challenger[s] engage[ ]"—at least according to the Plaintiffs—“the challenger[s] cannot complain of the statute's vagueness.” Case v. Ivey, 542 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1270 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (emphasis added) (citing Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982)). And that makes sense. If the Plaintiffs are confident that their family members and colleagues "likely have not been inspected' for purposes of Section 10,” Memorandum at 20 (emphasis added), they cannot simultaneously say that the statute is so vague as to be "incoherent,” id. at 19. And no one seems to be disputing the statute's application to the transportation of illegal immigrants who've never encountered the federal government. See Response at 1 (“The challenged statute prohibits knowingly transporting individuals across state lines . . . when the federal government has had no opportunity to inspect them following an illegal border crossing."); see also Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Educ., 746 F.3d 1135, 1140 (11th Cir. 2014) (reversing district court's grant of a preliminary injunction on vagueness grounds because “[s]ome of [the challengers'] conduct indisputably falls within the [a]ct's definition of political activity, and therefore the challengers cannot bring a facial challenge arguing the based on other applications"); J&B Social Club, No. 1, Inc. v. City of Mobile, 920 F. Supp. 1241, 1247 (S.D. Ala. 1996) (“As for the plaintiffs' claim of facial vagueness, the ordinance clearly is not vague in all of its applications. There is no question that it prohibits topless female dancing in a bar such as the one owned and operated by the plaintiffs." (emphasis added)). term vague Similarly, in our case, the Plaintiffs concede—in fact, they insist—that Section 10 prohibits at least some of their conduct. See, e.g., Reply at 7 (“Defendants bizarrely suggest that Section 10 only 20

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 21 of 40 But Section 10 ‘indirectly” ‘discourage[s]' undocumented immigrants ‘from entering the State.’ flatly prohibits their transport into the state, and criminalizes providing it."). We thus cannot agree that persons of reasonable intelligence would be unable to derive a “core meaning” from Section 10. See Motion to Proceed Anonymously at 1 (“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit challenging a law that will criminalize their families' and friends' travel into Florida[.]"). The Plaintiffs, in short, haven't shown that they're likely to succeed on the merits of their due-process claim. b. Preemption The Plaintiffs' preemption arguments are far stronger. As the Plaintiffs see it, “the Eleventh Circuit has squarely held, as a matter of both field and conflict preemption, that states cannot regulate the transport of immigrants, because federal law fully occupies that field and displaces even complementary state regulation. That clear holding is fatal to Section 10 and [is] sufficient to resolve this case." Memorandum at 9. In their view, because the “federal transport and harboring regime [] contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1324. . . . establish[es] ‘an overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field of ‘entry, movement, and residence of aliens in the United States,” id. at 9-10 (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264), “field preemption 'foreclose[s] any state regulation in the area," id. at 10 (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401). 222 There are three ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, “express ‘pre-emption occurs when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to pre-empt state law."" Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer Advos. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238, 1252 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 368 (1986)). Second, “conflict preemption occurs when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law."" Ibid. (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 476 U.S. at 368). Third, "[f]ield preemption occurs when a congressional legislative scheme is 'so pervasive as to make the reasonable inference that Congress left no room for the states to supplement it.” Browning, 522 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). But, as 21

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 22 of 40 the Supreme Court has explained, “the categories of preemption are not rigidly distinct,” and “field pre-emption may be understood as a species of conflict pre-emption[.]" Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 n.6 (2000). In other words, a state law that's field preempted necessarily “conflicts with Congress' intent (either express or plainly implied) to exclude state regulation.” English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 n.5 (1990). We'll therefore address the Plaintiffs' arguments on field and conflict preemption together. The Eleventh Circuit has been clear that, through the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), Congress “provided a full set of standards to govern the unlawful transport and movement of aliens.” Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264 (cleaned up). In our Circuit's view, therefore, “a state's attempt to intrude into this area is prohibited because Congress has adopted a calibrated framework within the INA to address this issue.” Ibid. As the Circuit has explained (reviewing a Georgia law that placed prohibitions on transporting undocumented immigrants): [S]ection 7 [of the Georgia law] creates three distinct state criminal violations: (1) transporting or moving an illegal alien, O.C.G.A. § 16–11–200(b); (2) concealing or harboring an illegal alien, id. § 16–11–201(b); and (3) inducing an illegal alien to enter the state of Georgia, id. § 16–11–202(b). Each of these offenses requires that the accused also be engaged in another criminal activity, and each further requires that the accused know of the illegal status of the subject. The State Officials argue that the district court erred in finding that section 7 is preempted by the criminal provisions of the INA, particularly 8 U.S.C. § 1324. We disagree. To determine the intent of Congress, we first look to the text of the relevant federal statutes. The INA provides a comprehensive framework to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)—(iv), it is a federal crime for any person to transport or move an unlawfully present alien within the United States; to conceal, harbor, or shield an unlawfully present alien from detection; or to encourage or induce an alien to "come to, enter, or reside in the United States.” Any person who conspires or aids in the commission of any of those criminal activities is also punishable. Id. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v). Section 1324(c) permits local law enforcement officers to arrest for these violations of federal law, but the federal courts maintain exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute for these crimes and interpret the boundaries of the federal statute. See id. § 1329. Subsection (d) of § 1324 further dictates evidentiary rules governing prosecution of one of its enumerated offenses, and subsection (e) goes so far as to mandate a community outreach program to "educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.” Rather than 22

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 23 of 40 authorizing states to prosecute for these crimes, Congress chose to allow state officials to arrest for § 1324 crimes, subject to federal prosecution in federal court. See id. SS 1324(c), 1329. In the absence of a savings clause permitting state regulation in the field, the inference from these enactments is that the role of the states is limited to arrest for violations of federal law. We are further convinced that section 7 presents an obstacle to the execution of the federal statutory scheme and challenges federal supremacy in the realm of immigration. By confining the prosecution of federal immigration crimes to federal court, Congress limited the power to pursue those cases to the appropriate United States Attorney. See 8 U.S.C. § 1329; Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2503 (explaining that if the state provision came into force, states would have “the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies”). Indeed, the State Officers have taken the position that an individual driving an unlawfully present alien to the supermarket could be prosecuted under section 7 and under the similar provisions of the INA … … …. This contention illustrates the State Officers' misunderstanding of the nature of federal immigration law and the reach of state authority in the realm of immigration-related law enforcement. Id. at 1263–66. In other words, outside of the states' congressionally bestowed authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, the states are "prohibited from enacting concurrent state legislation in this field of federal concern." United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1285 (11th Cir. 2012). This framework allows the federal government to retain “control over enforcement” of the INA and protects the “integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266. In Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit examined an Alabama statute that "create[d] state crimes for (1) concealing, harboring, or shielding an unlawfully present alien from detection, or attempting to do so; (2) encouraging or inducing an unlawfully present alien to 'come to or reside in' Alabama; (3) transporting, attempting to transport, or conspiring to transport an unlawfully present alien, including an alien's conspiracy to be transported; and (4) harboring an unlawfully present alien by entering into a rental agreement with that alien.” 691 F.3d at 1285. As we've said, citing Georgia Latino, the Alabama Court held that "Alabama is prohibited from enacting concurrent state legislation in this field of federal concern.” Id. at 1287. 23

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 24 of 40 And several other circuits have come out the same way. See Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1025-26 & n.17 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that an Arizona law that was "virtually indistinguishable” from “[t]he Georgia law in [Georgia Latino]” was field preempted because of the “comprehensive nature of § 1324, its place within the INA's larger structure governing the movement and harboring of aliens, and § 1324(c)'s explicit but limited provision for state involvement"); United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518, 530–31 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Sections 4(B) and (D) of the Act make it a state felony to ‘transport, move or attempt to transport' or 'conceal, harbor or shelter' a person 'with intent to further that person's unlawful entry into the United States' or to help that person avoid apprehension or detection . . . . We find the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning persuasive. Sections 4(B) and (D) of the Act are field preempted because the vast array of federal laws and regulations on this subject . is so ‘pervasive that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.' . Furthermore, the sections are conflict preempted because there is a federal interest so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” (cleaned up & quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 399)); Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297, 316 (3rd Cir. 2013) (“We agree with the Eleventh Circuit and other courts that have held that 'the federal government has clearly expressed more than a "peripheral concern" with the entry, movement, and residence of aliens within the United States and the breadth of these laws illustrates an overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field." (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264)). As the Defendants themselves recognize, the federal circuit courts have uniformly ruled that “prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens” fall into a “preempted field.” Response at 15 (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266). Still, the Defendants argue that Section 10 is neither field nor conflict preempted because it regulates a bit more than just the transportation of undocumented immigrants. That's because, in their view, the phrase "has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry 24

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 25 of 40 from another country" could refer to “alien[s] or citizen[s].” Ibid. In other words, according to the Defendants, "[Section] 787.07 does not regulate aliens, and it does not turn on a person's unlawful presence. Rather, whether alien or citizen, legally present or illegally present, individuals may not be transported into Florida unless the federal government has had the opportunity to ‘inspect them.” Id. at 15–16. The Plaintiffs, they add, “present no argument that Congress has exclusively occupied the field of 'transporting individuals who have not been inspected across state lines."" Id. at 16. We're not persuaded. For one thing, common sense dictates that the category of uninspected citizens as opposed to uninspected aliens-covers a relatively small (and statistically insignificant) subset of people. At our preliminary-injunction hearing, the Defendants agreed that this group would be composed of “U.S. citizens” coming back from, say, “the Bahamas with a bunch of people on [a] boat, or drugs.]" Dec. 13, 2023, Hr❜g Tr. at 97:16–19. This is undoubtedly a “miniscule category[.]" Reply at 6. For another, the Supreme Court has made clear that, “[w]here Congress occupies an entire field, . . . even complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. This is because "[f]ield preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards." Ibid. (emphasis added); see also KVUE, Inc. v. Moore, 709 F.2d 922, 931 (5th Cir. 1983) (“If preempted, a complementary or supplementary state regulation is as invalid as one directly conflicting with the federal scheme, for preemption forbids state regulation either to advance or to retard the federal purpose."). In this case, it'd be difficult to argue that Section 10 is not at least complementary to the federal immigration scheme: The parties agree that, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, states may not enact laws that regulate the “unlawful transport and movement of aliens," Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264, and Section 10-by its own terms-regulates the 8 See Response at 15 ("The first step in evaluating field preemption is to identify a field ... . Yet Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate the applicable field. Instead, they cite [Georgia Latino] ad nauseum . . . . In that case, however, the preempted field was 'prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens.""). 25

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 26 of 40 "knowing[] and willful[ ] transport[] into this state [of] an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry from another country,” Complaint ¶ 66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07(1)). It's thus preempted under Georgia Latino—even if the Defendants are right that, in addition to regulating uninspected aliens, the law also targets the small number of citizens who might fall within its ambit. As to the Defendants' claim that “[section] 787.07 does not regulate aliens,” Response at 15, the Plaintiffs are right that SB 1718, “[t]he bill that enacted Section 10[,] is titled 'An act relating to immigration.”” Reply at 7. The day he signed SB 1718, Governor DeSantis announced in a press release that "[t]he legislation I signed today gives Florida the most ambitious anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, fighting back against reckless federal government policies and ensuring the Florida taxpayers are not footing the bill for illegal immigration.” Press Release [ECF No. 30-13] at 9. Senator Blaise Ingoglia, who sponsored the bill, echoed that sentiment: “Our Southern Border has been dealing with a manmade crisis under the ineptness of President Biden, allowing more than 6.3 million illegal immigrants to flood our border . . . . Today, under the leadership of Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida made history signing into law the strongest state-led anti-illegal immigration bill ever brought forth." Ibid. And the Defendants themselves concede that “the statute may have some effect on the transportation of unauthorized aliens [.]" Response at 16. It therefore stretches credulity for the Defendants to suggest that Section 10 “does not directly regulate the transportation of illegal aliens" and "merely overlaps with federal law in some of its applications [.]" Id. at 17 (emphasis added). In any event, we've found no precedent for the Defendants' view that a party can circumvent field or conflict preemption by marginally expanding a regulation to cover a small, additional category of situations (or people). The Defendants, recall, say that, “[w]hile the statute may have some effect on the transportation of unauthorized aliens," it could also affect “citizen[s]" who have not been 26

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 27 of 40 "inspected" by the federal government. See id. at 15–16. But our courts have routinely rejected similar arguments. The state law in Fuentes-Espinoza v. People, for example, provided that a person commits a class 3 felony “if, for the purpose of assisting another person to enter, remain in, or travel through the United States or the state of Colorado in violation of immigration laws, he or she provides or agrees to provide transportation to that person in exchange for money or any other thing of value.” 408 P.3d 445, 447 (Colo. 2017). Like our law, this Colorado statute regulated a broader set of people than just undocumented immigrants—viz., anyone who violated the immigration laws. Still, the Supreme Court of Colorado held, citing Georgia Latino, that the law was preempted by the INA “under the doctrine of field preemption.” Id. at 452. The court reasoned that Congress has “evince[d] [an] intent to maintain a uniform, federally regulated framework for criminalizing and regulating the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, and this framework is so pervasive that it has left no room for the states to supplement it.” Id. at 452. Similarly, in Valle del Sol, the Arizona law at issue “swe[pt] more broadly than its federal counterpart by adding a new category of prohibited activities.” 732 F.3d at 1028. Specifically, the Arizona law "criminalize[d] encouraging or inducing an alien to come to or reside in Arizona,” while the federal harboring statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, “criminalizes encouraging or inducing an alien to come to or reside in the United States but ( ) does not penalize encouraging or inducing aliens, already in the United States, to travel from state to state or into any particular state.” Ibid. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit held that the state law was preempted because, “although it shares some similar goals with 8 U.S.C. § 1324, it ‘interfere[s] with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to' the harboring of unauthorized aliens.” Id. at 1026 (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 406); see also id. at 1027 (“[The Arizona law] conflicts with the federal scheme by divesting federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute these crimes.. As the Eleventh Circuit explained: [I]nterpretation of [state harboring] crimes by state courts and enforcement by state prosecutors unconstrained by federal law threaten the 27

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 28 of 40 uniform application of the INA."" (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266)). We agree. As these cases demonstrate, broadening a state law to complement (or to extend just beyond) the federal immigration-transport scheme doesn't shield that state law from field preemption. Like the laws in Georgia Latino, Alabama, Valle del Sol, South Carolina, Lozano, and Fuentes- Espinoza, Section 10 is both field and conflict preempted. Congress has established an "overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field” of unlawfully transporting aliens. Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264. And our Circuit has said unambiguously that only the federal government—through the INA- -can regulate the unlawful transportation of aliens within that field. See ibid. ("Like the federal registration scheme addressed in Arizona, Congress has provided a ‘full set of standards' to govern the unlawful transport and movement of aliens The INA comprehensively addresses criminal penalties for these actions undertaken within the borders of the United States, and a state's attempt to intrude into this area is prohibited because Congress has adopted a calibrated framework within the INA to address this issue." (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401)). Under Section 10, however, “an individual driving an unlawfully present alien to the supermarket could be prosecuted" by the Office of Statewide Prosecution and the state attorney-a scenario that, in the words of the Georgia Latino Court, "illustrate[d] the State Officers' misunderstanding of the nature of federal immigration law and the reach of state authority in the realm of immigration-related law enforcement.” Id. at 1265–66. And the Defendants' chief objection—that Section 10 might also apply to a tiny swathe of U.S. citizens who haven't been "inspected" after an illegal border crossing—cannot override the Eleventh Circuit's clearly stated view that "criminal acts of harboring and transporting unlawfully present aliens constitute an impermissible 'complement' to the INA that is inconsistent with Congress's objective of creating a comprehensive scheme governing the movement of aliens within the United States.” Id. at 1266; see also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66–67 (1941) (“[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in [a] field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation, . . . states 28

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 29 of 40 cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."). By making it a felony to transport into Florida someone who “has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry,” Section 10 extends beyond the state's authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law and, in so doing, intrudes into territory that's preempted. See Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264 (“In the absence of a savings clause permitting state regulation in the field, the inference from these enactments is that the role of the states is limited to arrest for violations of federal law [governing the transport or movement of an unlawfully present alien within the United States].”); Lozano, 724 F.3d at 316-17 (rejecting the argument that, “by authorizing state and local officials to arrest individuals guilty of harboring, see 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c), Congress specifically invited state and local governments into this field"). For all these reasons, we hold that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field-preemption claims.' III. Irreparable Injury For the second prong of the preliminary-injunction test, the party seeking the injunction must show that "irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues [.]" Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1231. The individual Plaintiffs contend that, if we don't enjoin Section 10, they will “suffer irreparable harm by being placed at immediate risk of arrest, detention, and prosecution[.]” Memorandum at 20. They add that some "[i]ndividual Plaintiffs and FWAF members transport into Florida family members, co- workers, and others who entered [the United States] unlawfully and who likely have not been 9 Because we've found that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field- preemption claims, we needn't reach the Plaintiffs' other preemption arguments―viz., that Section 10 is preempted because it conflicts with the “federal removal scheme,” Memorandum at 12, because it "impermissibly creates a novel immigration classification," id. at 13, or because it "disrupts the adjudication of immigration applications and removal proceedings,” id. at 16. 29

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 30 of 40 ‘inspected' for purposes of Section 10, in possible violation of the law.... Under the broad language of Section 10, Plaintiffs and FWAF members face arrest, prosecution, mandatory detention, and family The threat of pre-trial detention and subsequent felony prosecution is severe harm separation that cannot be undone." Ibid. Having reviewed the declarations of the three individual Plaintiffs who have established their standing to sue, we think that these three Plaintiffs have also shown that, absent an injunction, they would suffer irreparable injury. Ms. Mendoza, for instance, attests that she is willing to continue engaging in illegal conduct—thus risking actual or imminent criminal prosecution: Transporting individuals with various immigration statuses, including individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities, is a key part of my job[.] Currently, I spend about 30% of my time assisting people with transportation. In the past ten years, I have driven individuals into Florida dozens of times. These transportation services include taking people in my personal vehicle from Georgia to Florida for various reasons, including to see medical specialists in Jacksonville, Florida. I also personally transport [undocumented immigrants] to appointments with [USCIS] for fingerprinting and other services. Some immigrants in my nonprofit's area are directed to attend USCIS appointments in Jacksonville, even though they reside in Georgia . . . . One of the women in my community was released from the hospital a week or so ago after being admitted for renal failure. Her stomach had been getting bloated and she had no idea how close to death she was. She is a middle-aged undocumented woman from the state of Yucatan, Mexico . . . . I am 100% willing to transport her to Florida or anywhere else she needs to go to get the care she needs. SB 1718, however, has made me extremely anxious that my efforts to help this woman may result in significant jail time and prosecution for me. Mendoza Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 11, 14. Ms. Mendoza is likely to suffer irreparable injury because “[t]he threat of criminal prosecution . constitutes irreparable harm” for purposes of a preliminary injunction. ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Gold, J.); see also Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1269 (affirming the "district court's conclusion that [p]laintiffs have met their burden to enjoin enforcement of section 7" because the "[p]laintiffs are under the threat of state prosecution for crimes that conflict with 30

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 31 of 40 federal law, and . . . enforcement of a state law at odds with the federal immigration scheme is neither benign nor equitable”); Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1029 (holding that the individual plaintiff had “established a likelihood of irreparable harm” by “demonstrat[ing] a credible threat of prosecution under the statute”). So too here. Ms. Mendoza has established, through a sworn filing, that she faces a kind of Hobson's choice-between engaging in conduct she views as unconstitutionally proscribed (and facing a credible threat of prosecution under Section 10) and refraining from conduct she believes to be lawful. That's sufficient to establish irreparable harm under our precedents. As for Mmes. Aragon and Medrano Rios, their declarations suggest that they're now too afraid to travel in and out of Florida with their undocumented friends or family members—for fear of being arrested or prosecuted or of having their family members deported. These Plaintiffs allege that Section 10 has effectively prevented them from seeing their family members who live outside of Florida, leading to prolonged periods of separation. Ms. Aragon, for instance, says that: I fled to the United States from Nicaragua during the civil war in the 1980s, and I became a U.S. citizen more than twenty years ago. My daughter came to the United States many years later with my grandson, when he was less than a year old. To the best of my knowledge, my daughter and grandson crossed the border into the United States without ever being stopped or processed by immigration agents... ... I have a niece and other family members who live in Georgia and a very close family friend who lives in Washington, D.C.—she is like another daughter to me. I usually go to visit her and her family about every year. My grandson and I traveled to Georgia for a visit with family last October, and we were planning to go again this year . . . . Because we are afraid of everything [that] could happen as a result of the new law, my grandson and I had to give up our trip to Georgia this year. I do not know when we will be able to go back to visit our family. Now that the transport law is in place, I am afraid to travel with my grandson. If I am traveling with him, I could be stopped and arrested for breaking the new transport law if the police believe I am transporting him. That idea fills me with panic. It also makes me feel sad to be separated from my family and friends who live in other states. I am getting older, and time with my loved ones is important. I also do not want to travel by myself, because I don't want to leave my grandson alone now. I want my grandson to have a relationship with his other family members, and I feel terrible that his world is limited because of the transport law. Aragon Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7. And Ms. Medrano Rios similarly avers that: 31

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 32 of 40 I had planned to travel with my family to Texas, so that my children could visit their cousins and so that I could spend time with my brother and sister. Now, though, we can't take this trip. It is just too big a risk for my children and me. [My daughter] does not have an immigration case, and does not have any immigration status, even though she has applied for DACA. So, I am scared that she is not allowed to be brought back into Florida if we leave. And I don't know whether I can be driven back into Florida either, since I don't have any official status. I feel trapped not being able to take this trip, and I hated having to tell my family that it won't happen. It made me feel awful because finally after 6 years of being apart, my family was so close to finally being together again. Medrano Rios Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10–11. Mmes. Aragon and Medrano Rios have thus likewise demonstrated irreparable harm in the form of "indefinite family separation,” which many courts around the country have “recognized . . . as a form of irreparable injury.” Make the Road N.Y. v. Pompeo, 475 F. Supp. 3d 232, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see also Milligan v. Pompeo, 502 F. Supp. 3d 302, 321 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[S]eparation from family members is an important irreparable harm factor.” (cleaned up)); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); Palacios-Hernandez v. Meade, 2020 WL 13550207, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2020) (Smith, J.) (finding that the irreparable-injury factor weighed in favor of the plaintiffs "because of the prolonged separation of [the individual plaintiff] from his family”). Of course, if these Plaintiffs were to ignore Section 10 and visit their family members, they would then risk arrest and prosecution under the statute. The Farmworker Association will also suffer irreparable harm if Section 10 is not enjoined. Courts frequently find that organizational plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm where these plaintiffs show “ongoing harms to their organizational missions as a result of [a] statute.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1029; see also Ga. Coal. for People's Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1268 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (holding that the organizational plaintiffs “will also suffer irreparable injury distinct from the injuries of eligible voters" because their “organizational missions, including registration and mobilization efforts, will continue to be frustrated and organization resources will be diverted to assist with the 32

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 33 of 40 citizenship mismatch issue”); League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Cobb, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (Seitz, J.) (finding irreparable harm in part because the challenged statute forced the organizational plaintiffs to “halt[] or significantly scale[] back their voter registration operations”). Here, the Plaintiffs argue that Section 10 has “diverted . . . scarce resources" away from the Farmworker Association's “regular, core activities,” Memorandum at 22, and that it has impeded the Association's mission of providing transportation to migrant workers who “travel with the seasons to harvest crops, . . . back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year,” Complaint ¶ 17. In a Declaration, the General Coordinator of the Farmworker Association tells us that "FWAF has been inundated with questions and requests for assistance relating to travel between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama," forcing staff to "devote[] additional time outside of their regular activities and objectives to training existing volunteers and new volunteers on Section 10 and its impact on our members and the broader immigrant community.” Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶¶ 32–33. “Staff have been forced to spend time on calls rather than their normal work, which has resulted in delayed Medicaid applications, food stamps applications, and applications for U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm and Food Worker Relief.” Id. ¶ 35. Mr. Xiuhtecutli concludes, based on his experience, that the “impact of Section 10, including arrests and detentions, will continue to divert FWAF's resources from its core mission of strengthening farmworker communities through its different programs and normal organizing work.” Id. ¶ 38. Trying to parry, the Defendants say that the "Association has not explained how § 787.07 forc[es] the organization to divert resources to counteract' illegal acts." Response at 7 (quoting Browning, 522 F.3d at 1165). The Defendants also argue that the Association hasn't “show[n] ‘what harm [it] is seeking to counteract and how its diversion of resources is aimed at preventing that harm.” Id. at 8 (quoting Cousins v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 2023 WL 5836463, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023) (Berger, J.)). But the Association has described that harm. For example, Mr. Xiuhtecutli declared that: 33

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 34 of 40 Approximately 600 families that include dues-paying FWAF members left Florida at the end of the harvest season in May 2023. Most of these members are from the Immokalee and Fellsmere areas, who travel back and forth between Florida and northern states based on the growing season. Typically, these members would return in September 2023 for the squash, zucchini, chili pepper, tomatoes, lettuce, and other vegetable planting season. However, based on .. our organizers' conversations with members, I anticipate that approximately 100 member families will not return if SB 1718 remains in effect, because they do not want to risk a felony charge. These same member families are unlikely to return for the vegetable harvesting seasons in the Florida winter and spring. FWAF will lose many of these members, the dues from those members, and the critical in-kind donations from those members that help run FWAF's programs. Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 39. He also explains that the Association specifically diverted resources to prevent these harms, noting that staff has devoted additional time-outside of their regular activities—to provide "information and communications to [the Association's] members," who have “inundated [the Association] with questions and requests for assistance relating to travel between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama." Id. ¶¶ 32, 34; see also id. ¶ 34 ("Since SB 1718 passed, and even before Section 10 went into effect, FWAF began providing Know Your Rights presentations to specifically prepare for and educate our members on the impacts of SB 1718, including Section 10. FWAF has conducted twelve Know Your Rights presentations thus far.”). Finally, on the Defendants' claim that the Association hasn't been forced to divert its resources, see Response at 7, we think this argument parses the matter a bit too finely. As the Eleventh Circuit held in Georgia Latino, “an organizational plaintiff suffer[s] cognizable injury when it [is] forced to divert resources from its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in complying with the challenged statute.” 691 F.3d at 1260 (cleaned up). That's precisely what Mr. Xiuhtecutli alleges in his Declaration. See, e.g., Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 35 (“Staff have been forced to spend time on calls rather than their normal work, which has resulted in delayed Medicaid applications, food stamps applications, and applications for U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm and Food Worker Relief." (emphasis added)); id. ¶ 11.b. (“Until 2021, FWAF had three community gardens: one in Florida City (near our Homestead office), one in Pierson, and one in Apopka. In 2021, Florida City sold the land for our garden, forcing us to move many of the plantings to our smaller 34

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 35 of 40 office gardens. This year, because we were forced to respond to the crisis brought on by SB 1718, and in particular concerns from our members about Section 10, we have struggled to maintain our garden in Pierson." (emphasis added)). The Defendants also note that SB 1718 contains provisions outside of Section 10, and they contend that "many of the Association's allegations tie its diversion to the entirety of SB 1718, not merely" Section 10. Response at 8. They take issue, for example, with Mr. Xiuhtecutli's attestation that the Association has begun providing “Know Your Rights presentations... on the impacts of SB 1718, including [Section 10].” Ibid. (quoting Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 34). They also point to Mr. Xiuhtecutli's claims that the Association has “held member meetings regarding SB 1718, including Section 10,” and that “staff received more calls each day since SB 1718 passed than we received prior to its passage." Ibid. (quoting Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 35). We're not so troubled by these passages. There's no question that Mr. Xiuhtecutli's Declaration is focused specifically on the impact of Section 10. See, e.g., Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 30 ("Not only are individual FWAF members harmed by Section 10, but FWAF as an organization has and will continue to suffer harm because of Section 10.”); id. ¶ 36 ("The increase in FWAF staff's time and focus on Section 10 is driven by the needs of FWAF's membership."); id. ¶ 37 ("FWAF lacks the funds to increase its staffing to educate the community on Section 10 and its consequences. FWAF must now divert even more resources to fundraising in an attempt to address this deficit.”). The vast majority of the references by Xiuhtecutli (a non-lawyer) to SB 1718 as a whole either use the term as a metonym for Section 10, see id. ¶ 39 (“I anticipate that approximately 100 member families will not return if SB 1718 remains in effect, because they do not want to risk a felony charge.”), or expressly cabin the language to “Section 10 in particular,” id. ¶ 11(c). We therefore find that the Farmworker Association will suffer irreparable harm as an organization if Section 10 of SB 1718 is not enjoined. 55 35

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 36 of 40 Outside of their standing arguments, the Defendants advance just one argument for their position that the Plaintiffs aren't suffering irreparable injury: The Plaintiffs (the Defendants say) moved too slowly to “properly serve the pending motion on the State Defendants”—and this delay (the Defendants contend) suggests that “they are not seriously concerned about irreparable harm.” Response at 18-19. We disagree. Governor DeSantis signed SB 1718 into law on May 10, 2023; it went into effect in early July; and the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 17, 2023. See generally Complaint. All the Defendants were served by August 22, 2023. See generally Docket. While it's true that a plaintiff concerned about irreparable harm “would and should act swiftly to protect itself,” Car Body Lab Inc. v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 2021 WL 2652774, at *10 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2021) (Goodman, Mag. J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3404040 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2021) (Moreno, J.), we don't think a week or two between a statute's enactment and the filing of the lawsuit challenging it constitutes unreasonable delay. And, given that the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24, 2023—just two days after the last Defendant was served—we don't think they took too long to serve their motion either. IV. Equitable Factors The final two factors of the preliminary-injunction test are whether the “threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant" and whether the “entry of th[at] relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1225–26. These two factors “merge when, as here, the government is the opposing party.” Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The Defendants imply that an injunction against Section 10 will harm Florida's “interest in ensuring individuals in its territory are inspected[.]" Response at 19. Such an injunction (the Defendants fear) would prevent the state from identifying “drug traffickers [who] are successfully smuggling mass quantities of deadly illicit fentanyl past federal agents, wreaking havoc on Florida's citizens." Ibid. (cleaned up). We're unmoved. 36

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 37 of 40 For one thing, the Defendants never actually argue that their interest in rooting out drug traffickers outweighs the threatened injury to the Plaintiffs. They simply say that "Florida's interest in ensuring individuals in its territory are inspected is certainly legitimate.” Ibid. But even a “legitimate” governmental interest can be outweighed by the harm the challenged statute imposes on the Plaintiffs and the public. See, e.g., Ron Grp., LLC v. Azar, 2021 WL 5576616, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2021) (holding that the "balance of harms weigh[ed] in favor of granting the preliminary injunction,” even though “the state and the public certainly have an interest” in recouping a portion of the plaintiff's Medicaid claims); Deferio v. City of Syracuse, 193 F. Supp. 3d 119, 131 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that the “hardship faced by [p]laintiff”—“the loss of his right to demonstrate in a traditional public forum”- outweighed the city's interest in “maintaining peace and order in the community, preventing violence, and avoiding congestion," which are "[u]ndoubtedly . . . legitimate governmental interests" (cleaned up)). For another, we've already determined that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim, and a state “has ‘no legitimate interest' in enforcing an unconstitutional law.” Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor, 94 F.4th 1272, 1283 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2006)); see also Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Transp., 715 F.3d 1268, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he State's alleged harm is all the more ephemeral because the public has no interest in the enforcement of what is very likely an unconstitutional statute."); Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1269 (“[E]nforcement of a state law at odds with the federal immigration scheme is neither benign nor equitable.”); Alabama, 691 F.3d at 1301 (“[W]e discern no harm from the state's nonenforcement of invalid legislation.”). In other words, if a state law is preempted, then the state can suffer no harm from a court order that enjoins that law. Indeed, “[t]he United States suffers injury when its valid laws in a domain of federal authority are undermined by impermissible state regulations.” Ibid. In this case, any harm the state may suffer from an injunction is 37

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 38 of 40 outweighed by the harm Section 10 poses both to the Plaintiffs and to the United States, which has the ultimate interest in protecting federal supremacy in the realm of immigration. The Defendants proffer one final argument on the equities: that the “Plaintiffs come to this Court with unclean hands.” Response at 19. The Supreme Court has long adhered to the age-old maxim that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). The Defendants' theory is that the Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their goal in requesting this preliminary injunction is to facilitate “illegal conduct such as driving without a license, working without authorization, and avoiding detection for criminal illegal entry." Response at 19. But this argument—alluring at first glance—fails on closer inspection because the Defendants haven't met the elements of the unclean-hands defense. “To assert an unclean hands defense,” after all, “a defendant must show that (1) the plaintiff's wrongdoing is directly related to the claim, and (2) the defendant was personally injured by the wrongdoing.” Bailey v. TitleMax of Ga., Inc., 776 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 2015). The party seeking equitable relief must also have committed an “unconscionable act.” Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245 (1933). The Defendants never argue that all the Plaintiffs—some of whom are U.S. citizens—are engaged in wrongdoing. Ms. Mendoza, for instance, is a “U.S. citizen” who “ha[s] been a resident of Georgia for nearly forty years." Mendoza Decl. ¶ 2. The Defendants never suggest that Ms. Mendoza is driving without a license, working without authorization, or avoiding detection for criminal illegal entry. See generally Response. Nor do the Defendants allege that they were “personally injured” by any of the Plaintiffs' wrongdoing—or that the Plaintiffs' wrongful conduct (e.g., driving without a license or working without authorization) comes anywhere near constituting an “unconscionable act.” Where the party invoking the unclean-hands doctrine fails to establish a “close nexus” between "the 'unconscionable act' and the pending issue,” the court “cannot apply unclean hands against [the] 38

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 39 of 40 [p]laintiffs." Stewart v. Hooters of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 1752843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007) (Kovachevich, J.). * In a Notice of Supplemental Authority [ECF No. 97], the Plaintiffs "inform the Court of a decision. . . by the Fifth Circuit, holding that a Texas immigration law is likely preempted.” Id. at 1. In United States v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit held that SB 4—a Texas statute prohibiting noncitizens from illegally entering or reentering the state—was “likely field preempted,” affirming the district court's conclusion that “the federal government has both a dominant interest and a pervasive regulatory framework to control immigration into the United States, precluding state regulation in the area.” 97 F.4th 268, 278, 288 (5th Cir. 2024). That holding, of course, is consistent with our Circuit's decision in Georgia Latino—and, by extension, with our decision today. In dissent, however, Judge Oldham cautioned that "[t]he Supreme Court has never extended field preemption to any part of the immigration laws beyond alien registration." Id. at 298 (Oldham, J., dissenting). Judge Oldham may well be right: The Supreme Court, after all, seems never to have squarely held that the INA's framework for regulating the transportation, concealment, or harboring of aliens preempts the entire field. And we're sympathetic to Judge Oldham's admonition against “extend[ing] field preemption beyond the INA's alien-registration provisions." Ibid. Without express guidance from the Supreme Court, however, we remain bound by the pronouncements of our Circuit, which has held that the “unlawful transport and movement of aliens" is a fully preempted field. Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264; see also United States v. Files, 63 F.4th 920, 923 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Under our [Circuit's] prior-panel-precedent rule, an earlier panel's holding is controlling 'unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” (quoting United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008))); NLRB v. Datapoint Corp., 642 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981) (“Without a clearly 39

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 40 of 40 contrary opinion of the Supreme Court or of this court sitting en banc, we cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel of this court[.]" (emphasis added)). In our Circuit's view, “[g]iven the federal primacy in the field of enforcing prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, the prospect of fifty individual attempts to regulate immigration-related matters cautions against permitting states to intrude into this area of dominant federal concern." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266. Bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent, we hold that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Section 10 of SB 1718 is preempted by federal law-and that they have satisfied each of the other elements of their preliminary-injunction request. CONCLUSION We therefore ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED. 2. FLA. STAT. § 787.07 is PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED. 3. The Defendants must take no steps to enforce FLA. STAT. § 787.07 until otherwise ordered. This preliminary injunction binds the Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2024. CC: counsel of record 40 ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE