Federal Court Filing

Preliminary Injunction Motion Filed in §320.061 License Plate Frame Lawsuit

United States District Court asked to enjoin named Florida law enforcement defendants from enforcing §320.061 against license plate frames that do not obscure the alphanumeric designation or registration decal while the constitutional challenge proceeds.

The May 8, 2026 motion argues the current statute is being enforced daily even after FLHSMV guidance and Chapter 2026-39 confirmed a safe harbor for standard frames that leave the plate number and decal visible. The requested injunction tracks that safe harbor and asks the court to apply it before the Legislature's October 1, 2026 effective date.

What Is a Preliminary Injunction?

A preliminary injunction is an early court order that can preserve the status quo before final judgment. The motion invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and asks the court to restrict enforcement while the constitutional challenge is pending.

The motion identifies the Eleventh Circuit test: substantial likelihood of success on the merits, substantial threat of irreparable injury, balance of harms, and public interest. Where the government is the opposing party, the motion notes that the final two factors merge. PI Motion at 8.

Why the Court Must Act Now

The motion says the requested relief is urgent because every day the motion remains pending, Defendants issue more criminal citations under a statute the Florida Legislature has effectively disclaimed. It does not designate the filing as an emergency motion, but it requests expedited briefing and an early hearing date. PI Motion at 2-3.

The Four Factors

Substantial likelihood of success

The motion argues §320.061 is void for vagueness because its operative terms are undefined and standardless. It points to the Legislature's near-unanimous amendment removing “any feature or detail” and replacing it with the license plate number and registration decal standard.

PI Motion at 9-15

Irreparable harm

The motion argues Plaintiff faces immediate, ongoing exposure to arrest, prosecution, and criminal penalties for conduct the State has now declared lawful. It emphasizes daily driving, school transportation, interstate travel, and the Dawson arrest as evidence the threat is real.

PI Motion at 16

Balance of equities

The motion argues Defendants lose no legitimate enforcement authority because the requested injunction preserves enforcement against plates that obscure the alphanumeric designation or registration decal.

PI Motion at 17

Public interest

The motion argues there is no public interest in enforcing an unconstitutional criminal statute, particularly after the Florida Legislature voted to eliminate the challenged language.

PI Motion at 17-18

Enforcement Data Supporting the Motion

The figures below are reported as claims from the preliminary injunction motion itself, not as independent statistics from the website's broader citation dataset.

601

post-guidance criminal citations

The motion says agencies, including Defendants, issued at least 601 §320.061 criminal citations after the December 12, 2025 FLHSMV guidance.

PI Motion at 2, 4, 12

80

post-filing defendant citations

The motion says named Defendants collectively issued at least 80 additional §320.061 criminal citations from February 27 to April 27, 2026.

PI Motion at 2, 4

330

named-defendant post-guidance citations

The motion attributes at least 330 post-guidance citations to named Defendants: Miami-Dade Sheriff, Miami Beach, West Miami, and North Miami Beach.

PI Motion at 12

Oct. 1

effective date for the legislative fix

The motion says Chapter 2026-39's correction does not take effect until October 1, 2026.

PI Motion at 2, 6, 14

Read the Motion

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

If the PDF preview does not load in your browser, use the download link below.

Filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 1:26-cv-21355-JAL.

Download motion PDF

Relief Requested

In the WHEREFORE paragraph, Plaintiff asks the court to enjoin the named Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and persons acting in concert with them, from enforcing Florida Statute §320.061 within their jurisdictions in a manner that prohibits license plate frames that do not obscure the alphanumeric designation or registration decal. Plaintiff also asks the court to declare §320.061 facially unconstitutional, waive or set a nominal bond, and grant further just and proper relief.

PI Motion at 19-20.

Case Timeline

December 12, 2025

FLHSMV issues statewide guidance

The motion says FLHSMV guidance stated license plate frames are not prohibited if they do not obscure the alphanumeric plate identifier or the upper-right registration decal.

PI Motion at 3

February 27, 2026

Federal action filed

The motion identifies the federal challenge as Case No. 1:26-cv-21355-JAL in the Southern District of Florida.

PI Motion at 1, 4

March 11, 2026

Legislature passes SB 488

The motion says the Legislature addressed the problem by passing SB 488 with overwhelming bipartisan support.

PI Motion at 5, 13

April 21, 2026

Governor signs Chapter 2026-39

The motion says Governor DeSantis signed the bill, but the statutory fix does not take effect until October 1, 2026.

PI Motion at 1, 13-14

May 8, 2026

Preliminary injunction motion filed

The motion asks the court to enjoin named Defendants from enforcing §320.061 against frames that do not obscure the alphanumeric designation or registration decal.

PI Motion at 1, 19-20

Case Details

Case
Gisela Castilla Rodriguez v. Rosie Cordero-Stutz, Richard Del Toro, City of West Miami, City of Miami Beach, and City of North Miami Beach
Docket
1:26-cv-21355-JAL
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Assigned judge
Judge Joan A. Lenard
Motion date
May 8, 2026
Plaintiff
Gisela Castilla Rodriguez
Plaintiff counsel
Charles E. Whorton, Anna D. Quesada, Ticket Toro Law Firm, and Stephen Binhak
Hearing request
Plaintiff requests expedited briefing and an early hearing date, estimating sixty minutes per side. No hearing date has been set in the motion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the preliminary injunction motion ask the court to do?

The motion asks the court to enjoin Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, and persons acting in concert with them from enforcing Florida Statute §320.061 within their jurisdictions against license plate frames that do not obscure the alphanumeric designation or registration decal. It also asks the court to declare §320.061 facially unconstitutional, waive or set a nominal bond, and grant further just relief. PI Motion at 19-20.

What conduct would remain enforceable if the injunction is granted?

The motion says the requested carve-out preserves Defendants' ability to enforce §320.061 against conduct that obscures the alphanumeric designation or registration decal, and against criminal alteration, mutilation, tag flipping, and similar conduct outside the requested relief. PI Motion at 15.

Why does the motion say the injunction is needed before October 1, 2026?

The motion says Chapter 2026-39 corrects the challenged language but does not take effect until October 1, 2026. Until then, the motion argues Defendants continue enforcing the prior statute under vague terms. PI Motion at 2, 14.

What enforcement numbers does the motion rely on?

The motion states that agencies, including Defendants, issued at least 601 criminal citations after the December 12, 2025 FLHSMV guidance, and that named Defendants issued at least 80 additional criminal citations from February 27 to April 27, 2026. PI Motion at 2, 4.

Why does the motion argue §320.061 is vague?

The motion argues §320.061 does not define “interferes with,” “legibility,” “angular visibility,” “detectability,” “feature,” “detail,” or the threshold of interference that triggers criminal liability. It also argues officers are enforcing the statute inconsistently against conduct statewide guidance and Chapter 2026-39 confirm as lawful. PI Motion at 3, 10-13.

Has the court set a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion?

The motion requests expedited briefing and an early hearing under Local Rule 7.1(b), estimating sixty minutes per side. The motion itself does not list a hearing date. PI Motion at 18.

Coverage of the §320.061 Case

NBC Miami

CBS12

iHeart/WFLA

Jalopnik

News4Jax

Telemundo 51

Hoodline

Apple App Store

Justia

Continue Reading