Official Actions of Local Governments with Respect to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:
HB 1571 would prohibit Florida counties and municipalities from taking official action related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The bill bars local governments from adopting ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, programs, or policies that fall within the bill’s definition of DEI, which is limited to actions that classify individuals by race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation and promote preferential or deferential treatment based on those classifications.
The bill also creates enforcement mechanisms. Local officials who vote for prohibited DEI-related actions, or for certain ordinances expanding authority to carry out such actions, could be deemed guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance in office. In addition, county or municipal residents could sue in circuit court for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, with the bill limiting fee awards to local governments if they prevail. The bill expressly allows actions needed to comply with state or federal law and applies retroactively to local actions taken before July 1, 2025.
If enacted, HB 1571 would add new sections to the Florida Statutes governing counties and municipalities and would significantly restrict local policymaking on DEI-related matters. It would expose local governments and individual officials to litigation and potential office misconduct findings, while also creating a retroactive challenge mechanism for prior local actions. The bill would not affect local actions required by general law or federal law, but it would otherwise preempt a broad range of local DEI policies and programs.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, but the bill’s subject matter and structure indicate a strongly restrictive approach to DEI at the local level. Its failure to advance, dying in the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee, suggests it did not secure enough support to move forward. Overall, the bill appears to have been controversial or at least not broadly embraced in committee.
The main point of contention is the bill’s broad prohibition on local DEI-related action and its retroactive reach. Supporters would likely view it as preventing local governments from using public authority to favor certain groups, while opponents would likely argue that it intrudes on local home-rule authority, chills policymaking, and could undermine existing equity or inclusion initiatives. The enforcement provisions are also notable: the prospect of lawsuits, damages, attorney’s fees, and misfeasance or malfeasance findings against local officials would likely be a major source of concern for counties, municipalities, and local elected officials.