Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced on July 1 his intent to designate certain Muslim and anti-fascist groups—including U.S. groups—as “terrorist organizations.” Using authorities granted to him in a new Florida law, which took effect earlier that day, DeSantis declared that he would seek designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Brotherhood, and “Antifa,” among others. Within hours, the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) sued on behalf of CAIR, a leading U.S. Muslim civil rights nonprofit, to enjoin the designation and declare the new law unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
DeSantis’ announcement followed an executive order he issued last year to designate CAIR as a “terrorist organization,” an action temporarily halted by a federal court. DeSantis has sought to justify the designation of CAIR by pointing to its inclusion on a list of “unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers” in a material support for terrorism case—even though CAIR was never charged. (Indeed, according to CAIR’s latest lawsuit against DeSantis, the organization “has never been charged with or convicted of any crime, let alone one related to terrorism.”) DeSantis has said that the new law, House Bill 1471, was written specifically to give his earlier orders “more of a legal structure” and “add teeth” to the designations.
Florida is not alone. In 2026, lawmakers in several states introduced new laws authorizing state officials to designate domestic organizations as “terrorist” entities or “affiliates” of terrorist groups. But Florida’s law is particularly far-reaching and catastrophic in its impact on designated organizations and their supporters. As described below, designation under HB 1471 essentially makes it illegal for an organization to continue to function: Among other consequences, working for, funding, or otherwise supporting the organization becomes a felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison.
These laws raise serious constitutional concerns explored below, including: sweeping criminal penalties that reach First Amendment speech and association; a designation regime that gives state officials broad discretion to make designations with little due process; and potential preemption by the existing federal framework for terrorism designations.
How are domestic groups designated under Florida’s HB 1471?
HB 1471 authorizes Florida’s Chief of Domestic Security to recommend designating an organization as a “domestic terrorist organization” if the official “finds” that the group is “engaging in terrorist activity” that poses an ongoing security threat. The Chief must provide “a summary of the basis for” the designation, but the law does not require the findings to meet any evidentiary standard. Florida law also defines “terrorist activity” broadly to include any violent crime—not just serious felonies such as murder, but also misdemeanor assault—if intended to “intimidate” a civilian population or “influence the policy of a government by intimidation.”
Once recommended, the designation must be confirmed by Florida’s governor and Cabinet to take effect. DeSantis’ July 1 announcement stated that, upon confirmation by Florida’s Cabinet, his intended designations would “carry the full force of state law.”
What is the effect of designation under Florida’s HB 1471?
Designation as a “domestic terrorist organization” under HB 1471 exposes an organization, its members and employees, donors, and supporters to an array of serious criminal and civil penalties. These include:
Criminalizing “support,” including by donors, vendors, and staff. Under the law, knowingly providing or conspiring to provide “material support” to a designated group is a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison, regardless of whether the support was intended to further unlawful activity. Florida statutes define “material support” broadly as “any property … or service,” such that the prohibition covers not just donations, but also any form of service, including “financial services” and “expert advice or assistance.” CAIR argues, for instance, that the designation would bar lawyers, banks, vendors, accountants, and others from serving the organization. Indeed, the law makes an explicit exception only for “medicine or religious materials.” Because the law’s material support provision additionally prohibits “work[ing] under the direction and control” of or “manag[ing]” a designated organization, staff and management could face felony charges if they continued to do their jobs.
Prohibiting activities that advance an organization’s interests. A designated “domestic terrorist organization” also qualifies as a “criminal gang” under Section 874 of Florida statutes. Among other implications, anyone who “knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises” any activity “committed with the intent to benefit, promote, or further the interests of” a designated group commits a first-degree felony. As such, third parties who engage in any activity—even if lawful—that is intended to benefit a designated organization’s interests could seemingly face prosecution.
Barring public funding. The law prohibits state and local agencies from spending public funds “to support … a domestic terrorist organization, or a member of such organization.” This could affect public grants, contracts, and even employment for individual members of a designated group regardless of their role in any unlawful activity.
Potential dissolution. A designated group has 30 days to challenge a terrorism designation in Florida state court. Once legal challenges have been exhausted, the state can move to dissolve the organization.
Restrictions on private and public schools. The law bars public schools from funding programming that “promotes” a designated organization. The law also requires public colleges to expel students who “promote” designated groups in a way that is deemed to support violence and interfere with the rights of others. Private schools that receive state funds are barred from hiring or contracting with individuals “affiliated with” designated organizations—without defining what might constitute “affiliation.”
What are the constitutional implications of CAIR’s designation under Florida HB 1471?
If Florida’s Cabinet approves DeSantis’ planned designation of CAIR, it will immediately threaten the group’s ability to function and its members’ ability to engage in protected speech and association. Under HB 1471, CAIR’s employees, directors, and volunteers will face the possibility of felony charges if they continue to work—charges that may be based solely on their association with a designated group, rather than any actual or intended crime.
The First Amendment protects the right to associate, and that protection does not disappear when a group is accused of pursuing unlawful ends. The Supreme Court held nearly 80 years ago that “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect” of free speech and other civil liberties. Even groups accused of advocating for unlawful ends retain First Amendment protection unless their advocacy is aimed at and likely to produce “imminent lawless action.”
For individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment limits the government’s ability to impose criminal or civil liability based on mere association. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982), the Court noted that “guilt by association is a philosophy alien to the traditions of a free society… and the First Amendment itself.” In particular, individuals must know about and specifically intend to further a group’s unlawful goals or activities before they can be held liable.
HB 1471 allows officials to designate and essentially ban a domestic group based on allegations that it engages in “terrorist activity” (broadly defined), among other things enabling the prosecution of anyone who provides “material support” to the designated group simply if they are aware of the designation.
Laws that give government officials unbridled discretion to regulate expressive conduct may violate the First Amendment. CAIR has argued that its designation is unlawful retaliation for speech, enabled by the discretion HB 1471 affords state officials to target lawful advocacy that the government doesn’t like. The Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based regulations of speech to be particularly offensive to the First Amendment, and presumptively unconstitutional.
Nor does HB 1471 provide meaningful procedural protection. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before it can deprive an organization of property. HB 1471 requires officials to try to notify an organization of impending designation, but not on any particular timeline and only if notice “can be delivered… safely.” The notice need not include the basis for the designation. Further, under HB 1473—enacted alongside HB 1471—evidence underlying a designation determination is exempted from Florida’s public records law, limiting organizations’ access to it and undermining their ability to challenge the designation.
These concerns are underscored by the Supreme Court’s treatment of the federal material support statute in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010). There, the Court upheld the statute as applied to support for federally designated foreign terrorist organizations, but made clear that the prohibition did not apply to independent advocacy for a terrorist group or cause. The Court also expressly did “not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations.”
What does it mean for “Antifa” and the “Muslim Brotherhood” to be designated under the Florida law?
The concerns described above are magnified when the designated organization isn’t an “organization” at all. While CAIR is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with directors, staff, offices, and so on, “Antifa” is not. There is no single, specific “Antifa” organization in Florida or anywhere else in the United States, nor is there a national or global “Antifa” organization with chapters. As then-FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in 2020, Antifa is “not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”
As such, if the Florida Cabinet confirms DeSantis’ intended “Antifa” designation, it would not be clear what or who would be designated. DeSantis did not shed much light on the matter during his July 1 press conference, during which he described “Antifa” as “militant leftists” whose “ideas” he doesn’t like but whose “conduct” is the target of the designation. Without an actual organization to designate, the effects of designation threaten to fall on individuals and entities based on their politics or ideology.
Because the vagueness of a potential “Antifa” designation carries legal consequences, it risks chilling lawful conduct and sweeping in constitutionally protected speech and association, potentially reaching members or supporters of any group that identifies as anti-fascist regardless of whether they have broken a law. Because “Antifa” is arguably more ideological than organizational, its designation under HB 1471 could amount to impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
Similar problems arise with DeSantis’ planned domestic terrorist designation of the “Muslim Brotherhood.” Other than a small 501(c)(3) in Trenton, New Jersey, called “International Muslim Brotherhood Incorporated,” the IRS has no record of a “Muslim Brotherhood” organization in the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood is better known as a transnational Sunni Islamist movement or network with chapters mostly in the Middle East. Its potential designation as a domestic terrorist organization under HB 1471 threatens to chill First Amendment activity by Muslim community groups and advocates.
Is Florida the only state that designates domestic entities as terrorist organizations?
In 2026, Indiana enacted Senate Bill 256, authorizing the governor to designate domestic groups and individuals as “affiliates” of a federally designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). The law—which also went into effect July 1—defines “affiliate” broadly to include someone who “acts or acted in any capacity at the order or request” of an FTO or provided “material support or resources to aid” an FTO. Violations of the law are punishable by up to $10,000 per incident.
Lawmakers in several other states—Arizona, Louisiana, and Oklahoma—introduced bills in 2026 that would authorize state officials to designate domestic organizations as “terrorist” entities. These bills failed to advance in the 2026 session.
In 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive proclamation that, like Governor DeSantis’ order in Florida, sought to designate CAIR as a terrorist organization, triggering serious legal consequences under state law. As in Florida, CAIR sued, alleging First Amendment violations; the litigation is ongoing.
Florida and Indiana’s new laws (the former more pernicious than the latter) and those proposed in other states represent a significant shift. While 32 states and Washington, D.C. have domestic terrorism laws on the books—many already criticized as overbroad—those laws generally criminalize individual conduct. The new state designation laws go further by allowing state officials to label entire domestic organizations as terrorist entities and impose sweeping civil and criminal consequences, often with limited procedural safeguards and based on vague definitions that can criminalize protected First Amendment activity.
How do these state designations relate to federal designations of foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, including President Donald Trump’s designation of “Antifa”?
New state-level terrorism designation laws depart from the traditional federal framework for terrorism designations, allowing state officials to make designation determinations long reserved to federal authorities. Federal law provides, for example, for the designation of “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” and “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs), and makes it a crime to provide “material support” to FTOs. Because federal law provides for an extensive, uniform national scheme for terrorism designations, state laws that provide for designation of domestic groups may be vulnerable to federal preemption challenges.
In September 2025, Trump issued an executive order designating “Antifa” as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” The designation was not based in any underlying statutory authority and, as such, did not and does not trigger new criminal penalties for members of the designated “entity” or those who support it. However, together with National Security Presidential Memo 7 (NSPM-7), issued shortly after, the executive order does direct federal executive agencies to investigate and prosecute unlawful conduct by “Antifa,” individuals claiming to act on behalf of “Antifa,” as well as those who fund such conduct. Following the Antifa order and NSPM-7, the Trump administration has linked numerous prosecutions to its ongoing “campaign to eradicate Antifa’s domestic terrorism threat.”
[Editor’s note: Readers may be interested in Tom Joscelyn and Ryan Goodman, The Smearing of Alex Pretti and NSPM-7, Just Security (Jan. 26, 2026)]
Why does the new Florida law, and others like it, matter?
Anyone who cares about the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment should be concerned about HB 1471 and the spread of state-level terrorism designation laws. The laws provide officials with sweeping discretion to target groups and advocacy that the government doesn’t like. Whether or not HB 1471 survives constitutional challenge remains to be seen, and that outcome will be critical to whether other states enact similar designation schemes. Courts should step in to protect civil liberties and ensure that states cannot use “terrorist” designations to punish disfavored speech and association.
