On Wednesday, March 4, 2026, a federal judge in Tallahassee issued a preliminary injunction to block an executive order by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that had labeled the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as “foreign terrorist organizations.”
U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker ruled that the governor’s order likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded state authority.
Key Details of the Ruling
- Constitutional Overreach: Judge Walker wrote that the First Amendment prevents the governor from using his office to make “political statements at the expense of others’ constitutional rights.”
- Federal Authority: The court noted that the power to designate “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs) rests exclusively with the federal government. CAIR has never been designated as such by any federal agency.
- Impact of the Injunction: The ruling halts the enforcement of the order, which had instructed state agencies to block these groups—and anyone providing them “material support”—from receiving state contracts, employment, or government benefits.
Background of the Dispute
The legal battle began in December 2025 after Governor DeSantis issued the executive order, followng a similar move by Texas Governor Greg Abbott
| Party | Argument/Stance |
| Gov. Ron DeSantis | Alleged the groups had ties to terrorism and stated he “welcomed” the lawsuit as an opportunity to use the discovery process to investigate CAIR’s finances. |
| CAIR-Florida | Argued the label was a “smear campaign” and retaliation for their advocacy for Palestinian human rights and previous legal challenges against the DeSantis administration. |
| Civil Rights Groups | Joined the suit (including the SPLC and MLFA), arguing the order created a “culture of fear” and unconstitutionally targeted American Muslims. |
What’s Next?
The injunction is a temporary measure that stays in place while the full lawsuit proceeds through the court system. While the governor’s office has not yet issued a formal response to this specific ruling, they have previously indicated they intend to fight the case to gain access to the organizations’ internal records.