TALLAHASSEE, Florida — The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Florida’s congressional map — delivering a win to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who pushed through the changes that helped Republicans flip and maintain the House majority.
The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling could be far-reaching; it suggests legislators can sidestep protections for minority voters adopted in 2010. But the legal battle may not end, as one of the groups involved in the litigation said the battle over the district is “far from over.”
The legal challenge centered around the dismantling of a north Florida congressional seat that had been held by then-Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, and was initially put in place by the state Supreme Court 10 years ago. Lawson was elected in a district that stretched nearly 200 miles and connected Black neighborhoods from just outside Tallahassee to Jacksonville. Legislators, at the insistence of DeSantis, split the original district’s Black voters into four districts.
Florida’s Supreme Court, which has been completely remade by DeSantis, concluded Lawson’s old district is likely an illegal race-based gerrymander that violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that legislators had a “superior” obligation to follow federal law. That was the same logic used by DeSantis when he pressed lawmakers to scrap Lawson’s district.
“There is no plausible, non-racial explanation for using a nearly two-hundred-mile-long land bridge to connect the black populations of Jacksonville and Tallahassee,” wrote Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz in the decision. “Nor can the plaintiffs offer a plausible non-racial justification for the way the proposed remedial district carves up those cities.”
DeSantis, in a post on X, said that “this was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it.”
Voting rights and civil rights groups who challenged the map, including Black Voters Matter and the League of Women Voters of Florida — who were backed by the nonprofit affiliate of national Democrats’ redistricting committee — called it a “textbook violation” of Florida’s constitution.
Those groups cited the “Fair Districts” amendment, which said that districts could not be drawn in a way that “diminish” the ability of minorities to “elect representatives of their choice.”
Other groups that pushed ahead with the legal challenge also blasted the decision.
“The Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to enforce state law, allowing an unconstitutional map to remain in place, is alarming,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation. “The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people. This decision shamefully dismisses the fact that the state’s map actively diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians.”
“Make no mistake, the fight for fair maps in Florida is far from over,” Jenkins added.
Genesis Robinson, executive director of Equal Ground, called the ruling a “dark day” and said it was a “direct attack on Black political power and a decision that will have ripple effects for generations. It cements an unjust political advantage and further erodes trust in our institutions.”
The state court fight is just one of several lawsuits filed against the congressional map. A panel of federal judges last year rejected a lawsuit that contended the map discriminated against Black voters.
The court telegraphed it would likely uphold the congressional map when justices heard the case nearly a year ago. The ruling was approved by a 5-1 margin. Justice Charles Canady, whose wife is state Rep. and future Florida House Speaker Jennifer Canady, recused himself.
Justice Jorge Labarga, appointed by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, dissented and argued the court should have remanded the case back to the trial court since the ruling contended that those who sued had the burden to show a district that followed both the federal and state constitutions.
Labarga called the decision “consequential” and said it “lays the groundwork for future decisions that may render the non-diminishment clause practically ineffective, or worse, unenforceable as a matter of law.”
Florida picked up an extra seat in the last round of reapportionment, and state legislators initially planned to keep Lawson’s seat largely intact. But DeSantis strongly objected; he ultimately vetoed a map that reconfigured Lawson’s seat but still held strong advantages for minority voters’ preferred candidates. The map pushed by the governor ultimately resulted in Republicans picking up four seats across the state, helping the GOP narrowly win the House back in 2022.
Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh — citing the initial state Supreme Court ruling that created Lawson’s district — ordered legislators in 2023 to redraw it. But in an unusual move, the entire 1st District Court of Appeal took up the case and overturned Marsh’s decision, contending they were not bound by the previous state Supreme Court ruling. The decision slowed down the legal battle and meant it was not resolved ahead of the 2024 elections.
In its ruling, however, Carlos G. Muñiz and the high court blasted the appeals court and said the lower court actions could have been “resolved” earlier.
“Even when a district court disagrees with a decision of this court, it is the lower court’s duty to follow our precedent,” Muñiz wrote. “In appropriate cases, the district court may pass upon and certify a question of great public importance for our review. We reject the First District’s contrary approach.”