The judge concludes the prosecutor general of Florida in contempt for challenging an order of the court in a major immigration case

A federal judge found the Florida general prosecutor on Tuesday, James Uthmeier immigration And then boasted in the interviews.

American district judge Kathleen Williams wrote that Uthmeier offered “a series of incredible interpretations of the language he used” to affirm that he was in conformity with the order and that these interpretations were not credible.

“Justiciables cannot change the clear meaning of words because it suits them, especially when you send a clear and unambiguous prescription from a court”, ” Williams wroteOrdering Uthmeier to submit bihebdance reports showing that he complies with his order or may provide other legal actions.

The Uthmeier office did not immediately respond to a comment request Tuesday evening.

Follow the political coverage live here

Williams presided over a case contesting the immigration laws signed this year Governor Ron Desantis This makes it an offense for anyone in the country, in the country, to enter or enter the state. She made a ban on a ban in April with the exception of the application of the law, and uthmeier sent an opinion to the state agencies informing them of the order, adding that he disagreed with him and intended to appeal.

Five days later, on April 23, he sent to the organizations responsible for the application of laws a second opinion, claiming that his office had submitted a legal file contesting the prohibition order.

“Judge Williams ordered my office to inform you of the evolutionary scope of his order, and I did it,” he wrote. “But I cannot prevent you from enforcing (the disputed laws), where there is no legal order which prevents you correctly from doing so. As indicated in the memory that my office has deposited today, I think that no legitimate and legitimate order currently reaches your agencies.”

Williams asked why she should not find uthmeier in contempt, and he argued that he had not violated his order because he had not applied the new laws and that he had informed the state agencies of his order.

Williams noted that he had taken a much more provocative tone in media interviews.

“This judge plans to hold me of contempt or not. But I will not put his order.

“I’m not going to bow,” he added.

In another interview two days later, Uthmeier said that “she issues this order and said that you should tell everyone to withdraw. I’m not going to do that.”

Williams said the comments were “relevant” because “the repetition repeated by uthmeier of his message that the police are not linked, intentional or not, increase the risk of prejudice to his continuous non-compliance”.

“To be clear, the Court is not concerned about the criticisms and the disapproval of uthmal of the court and the order of the court. But respect for the integrity of the judicial orders is of capital importance,” wrote Williams.

She said that he “was free to disseminate her continuous appeal from the court injunction and her opinion according to which the decisions of the court are wrong. However, when they were invited to inform the police that they are interrupted to enforce a prohibited law, he cannot tell them the opposite.”

She ordered him to submit reports over two weeks on the question of whether there have been arrests or detentions under new laws. “Finally, if Uthmeier does not comply with these corrective sanctions, the court will examine other sanctions, including fines and costs to compensate complainants for the costs of strengthening the court order.”