Judge won’t allow anonymous plaintiffs in immigration lawsuit

A federal judge in South Florida has rejected a request by plaintiffs to remain anonymous in a challenge to a 2023 Florida law targeting people who transport undocumented immigrants into the state.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman last week issued an order siding with state objections to allowing anonymity for nine individual plaintiffs, who were listed in the lawsuit by initials. The Farmworker Association of Florida also is a plaintiff and did not seek anonymity.

Altman wrote that the plaintiffs did not meet certain legal tests to receive anonymity, including showing that they would face threats of physical harm if their names were made public.

“The plaintiffs' declarations mainly show that the plaintiffs have dealt with racial discrimination in the past and that they fear a hostile public reaction to this lawsuit. Some of the plaintiffs have experienced harassment on account of their race or immigration status. But there's no indication that any of these past experiences are in any way connected to this lawsuit, and none of the plaintiffs has ‘established real, imminent personal danger,'” Altman wrote, partially quoting a legal precedent.

He also cited legal precedents about identifying parties in legal cases.

“Because our plaintiffs' privacy interests don't outweigh the ‘customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,' the plaintiffs must identify themselves in their pleadings. While we understand that the plaintiffs feel ‘vulnerable to stress from public exposure,' the same could be said of every plaintiff who, with or without counsel, challenges government action,” he wrote.

The case, filed last year in federal court in South Florida, centers on part of a broader immigration law that threatens felony charges for people who transport an immigrant who “entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry.”

The plaintiffs have contended that federal immigration law trumps — or “preempts” — the state measure. Also, they have contended that the state law is unconstitutionally vague.