Federal appeals court blocks part of DeSantis' 'Stop WOKE Act' on constitutional grounds

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday against a portion of Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, a law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that intended to block "woke" ideologies in the workplace and schools.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said the so-called "Stop the Wrongs to our Kids and Employees Act," or "Stop WOKE Act," which blocks businesses from teaching diversity programs and lessons, was unlawful and flew in the face of the U.S. Constitution as it was based on viewpoints the state government held.

The portion of the law focused on education is unaffected by the lawsuit.

"The State of Florida seeks to bar employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints the state finds offensive. But meetings on those same topics are allowed if speakers endorse viewpoints the state agrees with, or at least does not object to," wrote Judge Britt C. Grant, speaking on behalf of the three-judge panel. "This law, as Florida concedes, draws its distinctions based on viewpoint – the most pernicious of dividing lines under the First Amendment."

"We cannot agree, and we reject this latest attempt to control speech by recharacterizing it as conduct. Florida may be exactly right about the nature of the ideas it targets. Or it may not. Either way, the merits of these views will be decided in the clanging marketplace of ideas rather than a codebook or a courtroom." Grant added. "The First Amendment keeps the government from putting its thumb on the scale."

DESANTIS SAYS FLORIDA WILL CUT FUNDING TO ALL CRT, DEI PROGRAMS: ‘WITHER ON THE VINE’

Grant, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued that regardless of any merit behind Florida’s law, how it was written actually violated the First Amendment.

"Even if we presumed that the act served the interest of combating discrimination in some way, its breadth and scope would doom it," Grant said. "Banning speech on a wide variety of political topics is bad; banning speech on a wide variety of political viewpoints is worse."

"Here, speech is not regulated incidentally as a means of restricting discriminatory conduct – restricting speech is the point of the law. That important distinction sets this Act apart from Title VII as an outright violation of the First Amendment," the opinion continued.

FEDERAL JUDGE HANDS DESANTIS ADMIN WIN OVER 'STOP WOKE ACT'

A district court previously blocked its enforcement, prompting the initial appeal by the governor’s office.

"We disagree with the Court’s opinion that employers can require employees to be taught—as a condition of employment—that one race is morally superior to another race," DeSantis' office said in a statement. "The First Amendment protects no such thing, and the State of Florida should have every right to protect Floridians from racially hostile workplaces.  We are reviewing all options on appeal going forward."

The act says employers cannot subject "any individual, as a condition of employment," to "training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels" certain beliefs about race, sex or other "diversity, equity, and inclusion" issues.

The law called certain viewpoints on these issues "hostile speech" and said businesses or schools requiring employees or students to learn its content amounted to "invidious discrimination."

NYC FORCES ALL CITY EMPLOYEES TO UNDERGO RADICAL CRITICAL RACE THEORY TRAINING: ‘REALLY UNFAIR’

In addition, the law prohibits government-funded schools that aim to "indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with" these principles.

READ THE APPEALS COURT OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

"That many people find these views deeply troubling does not mean that by banning them Florida is targeting discrimination," Monday’s opinion read. "By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content. And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints – the greatest First Amendment sin."

In addition to Grant, Judges Charles R. Wilson and Andrew L. Brasher ultimately determined that Florida’s law "contains an illegal per se ban on speech the state disagrees with."

Plaintiffs in the case – Honeyfund.com, Florida-based Ben & Jerry’s franchisee Primo Tampa, and Collective Concepts – argued the law’s mandatory-meeting provision violated their rights to free speech and described the law as particularly vague.

In a statement posted online Monday, Primo Tampa called it a "victory for my freedom of speech."

"Today’s ruling is a victory for my freedom of speech and that of all other business owners, but it’s also a victory for the free market: businesses remain free to respond to guest and team member needs," said Antonio McBroom, CEO of Primo Tampa. "The government obviously has no right to patrol my workplace for words that some politicians don’t like. And the government obviously has no right to substitute its preferences for those of any businesses’ guests and team members."

Protect Democracy, the group representing the plaintiffs, similarly said Monday’s ruling was "a major victory for free speech in the workplace."

"Speech codes have no place in American society, and elected officials have no business censoring the speech of business owners simply because they don’t agree with what’s being expressed," Shalini Goel Agarwal, Protect Democracy counsel, said in a statement.

And, "Barring employers from engaging in speech that powerful politicians don’t like is a move straight out of the authoritarian playbook. Today is a good day for the First Amendment and the ability of American businesses to speak freely."

Editor's note: The story has been updated to clarify that the lawsuit does not affect the law's provision on education.