Florida
learn about our work in Florida
learn about our work in Florida
All Cases
23 Florida Cases
Florida
May 2023

Shen v. Simpson
In May 2023, a group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the legislation unfairly restricts most Chinese citizens — and most citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — from purchasing homes and other real estate in Florida after July 1, 2023.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Florida
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Shen v. Simpson
In May 2023, a group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the legislation unfairly restricts most Chinese citizens — and most citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — from purchasing homes and other real estate in Florida after July 1, 2023.
May 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Florida
Apr 2023

Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers’ request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Florida
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers’ request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.
Apr 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Florida
Mar 2022

Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
On June 11, 2015, Florida abortion providers filed suit in state court to challenge a medically unnecessary law that would force virtually all people seeking abortions, unlike any other patients in Florida, to delay the care they need against their will and regardless of their personal circumstances. Since its enactment in 2015, the restriction has largely been blocked, but on March 23, 2022, a Florida state trial court indicated that it intended to rule for the State and dismiss the challenge, and, on April 8, 2022, the court issued an order upholding the law. The medically unnecessary and harmful law took effect upon entry of final judgment on April 25, 2022.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Florida
Reproductive Freedom
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
On June 11, 2015, Florida abortion providers filed suit in state court to challenge a medically unnecessary law that would force virtually all people seeking abortions, unlike any other patients in Florida, to delay the care they need against their will and regardless of their personal circumstances. Since its enactment in 2015, the restriction has largely been blocked, but on March 23, 2022, a Florida state trial court indicated that it intended to rule for the State and dismiss the challenge, and, on April 8, 2022, the court issued an order upholding the law. The medically unnecessary and harmful law took effect upon entry of final judgment on April 25, 2022.
Mar 2022
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Whether a request for nominal damages to redress a past constitutional violation is sufficient to allow the court to rule, where the government has changed the challenged policy so there is no need for forward-looking relief.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case

U.S. Supreme Court
Civil Liberties
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Whether a request for nominal damages to redress a past constitutional violation is sufficient to allow the court to rule, where the government has changed the challenged policy so there is no need for forward-looking relief.
Dec 2021
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy policy.