11th Circuit: Surprise -- Another Florida Law is Unconstitutional!

No, it's not the anti-Sharia "foreign" law (yet), this time it is about foreign law -- namely Cuba:

After careful review, we conclude that Odebrecht has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claim that the Cuba Amendment violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution under principles of conflict preemption. The Cuba Amendment conflicts directly with the extensive and highly calibrated federal regime of sanctions against Cuba promulgated by the legislative and executive branches over almost fifty years. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution “provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). The Cuba Amendment differs dramatically from the federal regime as to the entities covered, the actions triggering sanctions, and the penalties imposed. The Amendment also overrides the nuances of the federal law and weakens the President’s ability “to speak for the Nation with one voice in dealing” with Cuba. Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000). In addition, Odebrecht has demonstrated the other equitable requirements that warrant a preliminary injunction: Odebrecht would have suffered irreparable harm absent the injunction, the balance of harms strongly favored the injunction, and the injunction did not disserve the public interest. We affirm.

In other words -- good job, Judge Moore!

Herald coverage here.

Ha Ha -- Florida Can't Have Its Own Foreign Policy!

You know that red-meat "law" that Rick Scott (pictured above) signed, barring companies from bidding on state or local contracts if they have ties to Cuba?

Well you may have heard that Judge Moore found it only violated a slew of major constitutional provisions:  the Supremacy Clause, the Foreign Affairs Power, the Foreign Commerce Clause, plus it is inoperative on its own terms.

On the other hand, Judge Moore found that the law did not in fact violate the prohibition against quartering troops in private homes!

So sort of a split decision.

Nice win for Raoul Cantero and James Moye out of Maitland.

You can read the preliminary injunction order here.

Now let's get back to other important election year legislation, like banning Sharia law (a personal favorite).

Dean Hausler Continues Effort to Collect Assets From Cuban Government

You may recall the continuing efforts by Roberto Martinez, on behalf of longtime and beloved UM Law School Dean Hausler, to collect on a default judgment against the Cuban government relating to the 1960 torture and death of her brother Bobby Fuller.

The latest twist is a case recently removed and pending before Judge King in which Dean Hausler seeks to garnish funds allegedly retained by Tata Communications, a telecommunications company. Tata is represented by Michael Higer.

You can read the docket here.

Michael's answer (filed in state court before removal) asserts that the plaintiffs bear the burden and have not shown that ETECSA -- the telecommunications provider in Cuba -- is an instrumentality of the Cuban government and, even if it was, his client owes no money to it.

Higer also asserts that this case is entirely different than the Hausler I, the case brought against telephone provider EmtelCuba, in which there was no dispute that EmtelCuba was an agent or instrumentality of the Cuban government, and thus subject to garnishment for a judgment against the Cuban government.

The answer asserts that the extant evidence indicates that ETECSA is owned by Dutch, Italian, Panamanian and Cuban companies and thus would not be an agent or instrumentality of the Cuban government under existing law.

That seems like a tough sell, but who knows?

You can see some wonderful photos of Dean Hausler here.