Official Actions of Local Governments
S1134 would prohibit counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or taking official action related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The bill defines DEI broadly to include efforts tied to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation when used to influence hiring composition, provide preferential treatment or special benefits, or promote training or programming designed with reference to those characteristics. It also bars local governments from creating or funding DEI offices or employing DEI officers, and it voids existing local ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, programs, or policies that conflict with the new restrictions.
The bill also creates a private right of action allowing a county or municipal resident to sue if the local government violates the law, with possible declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and costs. In addition, it makes county commissioners and municipal officials who violate the law subject to misfeasance or malfeasance in office. The act takes effect January 1, 2027, and applies to certain existing DEI officer contracts on that date, while other contracts are covered when executed or renewed after that date.
The bill would add new sections to the Florida Statutes governing counties, municipalities, and local government contracting. It would invalidate conflicting local DEI-related policies, prohibit local spending on DEI offices and officers, and require contract or grant recipients to certify that they will not use county or municipal funds to require employees or others to ascribe to or be instructed using DEI materials. The measure also creates enforcement mechanisms through civil litigation and official misconduct consequences, while preserving exceptions for compliance with state and federal law and for certain holidays, observances, public safety services, and other specified activities.
The bill appears to have strong support in some legislative stages but also notable opposition. It advanced through Senate committees with majority support, but the Senate third-reading vote showed a divided chamber, including one failed third-reading vote followed by a later passage on a different third-reading vote. The House later passed the bill with a substantial margin, suggesting broader support in the lower chamber despite controversy. Overall, the sentiment around the bill is polarized, with supporters framing it as a restriction on local DEI spending and official action, and opponents likely viewing it as an overreach into local governance and public-sector diversity efforts.
The main point of contention is the bill’s broad definition of DEI and its sweeping prohibition on local government action, which critics may argue could reach training, programming, and policies that address discrimination or workforce inclusion. Another disputed issue is the voiding of existing local ordinances and the creation of penalties and private lawsuits, which raises concerns about litigation risk and local autonomy. Supporters appear to emphasize the bill’s exceptions for legal compliance and certain neutral or traditional government activities, while opponents are likely focused on the limits it places on local discretion, contracting, and employment practices.