TALLAHASSEE, Fla. \u2013 On Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued an opinion in which he called out over 80 \u201crace-based\u201d state laws.<\/p>\n
In the opinion<\/a>, Uthmeier points out that several laws in the state mandate discrimination based on race.<\/p>\n \u201cRacial discrimination is wrong. It is also unconstitutional,\u201d he writes. \u201cYet Florida maintains several laws on its books that promote and require discrimination on its face.\u201d<\/p>\n The laws discussed in Uthmeier\u2019s opinion are listed out below:<\/p>\n Uthmeier cites the 14th Amendment<\/a> and Florida\u2019s very own constitution<\/a>, explaining that citizens are supposed to be treated as individuals and protected from racial discrimination by the government.<\/p>\n \u201cFor government officials, the path forward is simple,\u201d he says. \u201c\u2019The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The attorney general also pointed to a 2022 Supreme Court case<\/a> in which Harvard College\u2019s race-based admissions procedures were found to have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Civil Rights Act. <\/p>\n \u201cThe Court further explained that \u2018[a]ny exception to the Constitution\u2019s demand for equal protection must survive a daunting two-step examination known… as strict scrutiny,\u2019\u201d Uthmeier adds.<\/p>\n [BELOW: Florida AG James Uthmeier holds Orlando news conference on protecting women\u2019s sports]<\/p>\n As Uthmeier tells it, any sort of race-based state action must be used to \u201cfurther compelling governmental interests\u201d and remain \u201cnarrowly tailored\u201d as necessary to achieve those interests.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified only two compelling interests that permit race-based state action:<\/p>\n Remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute<\/p>\n Avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot<\/p>\n As such, Uthmeier argues, race-based state actions like those in the statutes above must be limited in duration, as \u201call governmental use of race must have a logical end point.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNone of these laws withstands strict scrutiny. <\/p>\n First, these laws do not further a compelling governmental interest because none of these laws identifies any of the limited, recognized constitutional justifications for race-based classifications – namely remedying specific instances of past discrimination or avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety.<\/p>\n These laws further fail strict scrutiny because none are limited in duration and because they preclude race-neutral alternatives.”<\/p>\n Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier<\/p>\n One of the most \u201cegregious\u201d examples of racial discrimination that Uthmeier points out is a statewide affirmative action mandate<\/a> for Florida executive agencies.<\/p>\n Under this law, executive agencies must develop affirmative action plans to ensure \u201cfull utilization\u201d of groups like women, minorities and disabled people.<\/p>\n [BELOW: Florida AG reveals disturbing \u2018house of horrors\u2019 in Sanford]<\/p>\n