uga application essay 2023

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 4 tips for writing stellar uga essays.

College Info , College Essays

The University of Georgia is an excellent public school ranked in the top 50 universities nationwide . If you're applying here, you'll need to submit two amazing essays. So what are the UGA essay prompts? And how can you ensure your UGA essays will make you stand out?

In this in-depth guide, we give you all the current UGA essay prompts and tips for choosing and approaching the best prompt for you. We also look at an actual UGA application essay example to give you an idea of what your own essay can and should look like.

Feature Image: Boston Public Library /Flickr

What Are the UGA Essay Prompts?

The UGA application, which you can submit via the Common Application or the Coalition Application , requires all first-year applicants to submit two essays.

The first essay is the personal essay that's part of the Common App or Coalition App. You can find a list of the Common App prompts and how to answer them here (and you can find the same information for the Coalition App here) .

The second essay you'll submit is unique to the University of Georgia application. The first UGA essay must answer the following prompt:

The college admissions process can create anxiety. In an attempt to make it less stressful, please tell us an interesting or amusing story about yourself from your high school years that you have not already shared in your application.

This essay prompt is pretty different from what you'd expect in a college application; it offers you many possibilities, both content-wise and stylistically. But don't worry: we're going to break it down for you below!

How to Write the UGA Supplement Essay

All applicants must respond to this prompt in 200-350 words. Here it is again for reference:

As noted above, this prompt isn't like most other college essay prompts in that instead of asking about your academic goals, skills, or accomplishments, it's trying to loosen you up by having you write about something fun and unique in your life.

In other words, UGA wants to tease out your less serious, less academic side to get a better sense of who you are as a person and not just as a student. Specifically, they want to know what holds meaning in your life and what kind of experience you think is worthy enough to share with the admissions committee.

Therefore, your first UGA essay must accomplish the following:

• Should be different from what you've talked about elsewhere on your application
• Should highlight your sincerity and personality
• Should reveal something important about who you are and/or what you value
• Should NOT be too serious—remember that UGA wants an "amusing" story!

Some of these qualities might go against everything you thought you knew about college essays, but it's important here to really try to be sincere, write with an authentic voice, and not shy away from showcasing your more irreverent side.

Here are some examples of possible topics you could write about:

• A time you made a faux pas or silly mistake (in or outside of school), how others reacted, and what you did to remedy the situation and/or learn from it
• A funny misunderstanding you had with someone, such as a teacher, friend, or parent, and what this experience taught you about the importance of clear communication
• Something amusing or thought-provoking you watched, listened to, read, or did, and why you found this particular thing so fascinating (this shouldn't be any old movie or book but something a little more unique)
• A unique hobby or interest you have, how you developed it, and why it's important to you

As you can see, you have a lot of options for what you can write about for this UGA essay. That said, make sure to avoid the following topics:

• Politics, religion, or any other overly serious or potentially controversial topic
• Death, illness, or any other grave event or moment from your life
• Something everyone has experienced or heard of—your topic should be unique to you
• Anything you've already mentioned in a different section of your application
• Stories about bodily functions (UGA specifically mentioned getting too many of these stories, so have some pity on them and choose a different topic!)

A Real UGA Application Essay Example + Analysis

Below is an actual UGA application essay example written by an admitted applicant named Micaela B. This essay, which is a response to an older prompt (" Tell a story from your life, describing an experience that either demonstrates your character or helped to shape it" ), was taken from the UGA undergraduate admissions website where it was used as "an example of what we [UGA] consider a strong essay."

Here is the essay, at just around 300 words long (the word limit):

It's unassuming, the tiled top square table with mismatched chairs, its lacquer wearing thin from dishes being passed back and forth, room for four but always crowded by eleven. It may be unassuming but its power is undeniable.

As I grew older, the after-dinner conversations grew more intriguing to me. I began to stay and listen, to the politics I didn't understand and the adult gossip I shouldn't have been privy to. The dynamic of the debate shifted almost every time the topic changed, but the one thing that was consistent was that after all the plates were cleared and the chairs were pushed back in, everyone came together for dessert; pizzelles and biscotti. No afterthoughts, no bitterness.

I admire my family's ability to embrace each other for their differences, instead of letting it break us apart. There was no greater example of the lesson in acceptance than when my family learned of the change in sexuality of one of our relatives. After the dissolution of a marriage and a traditional family, the initial resentment towards her for the challenge to our family values was difficult to digest, yet unavoidable. It was the first dispute that ever brought tears to that weathered table with the peeling laquer. Instead of allowing differing lifestyles to drive a wedge between us, our family challenged each other's misconceptions, we discussed, we cried and we accepted.

Being raised in such a racially, economically and religiously diverse community, I am lucky to have developed the skill set to empathize with the people around me and understand that not everyone thinks the same way. In fact life would be pretty boring if everyone acted in uniformity; in a more harmonious world, everyone should be able to voice their opinions and speak their minds, and still come together for dessert.

Here's what makes this UGA essay work:

• It opens with a captivating description: This essay, especially the first two paragraphs, is undeniably attention-grabbing. The vivid image of the "tiled top square table" and how it is "always crowded by eleven" thrusts us directly into Micaela's boisterous life, making us feel as though we're sitting right there beside her and her family.
• It's tightly focused and easy to follow: From the beginning, we can tell that the crux of this essay is family, specifically the challenges that come with being a member of a large, diverse group. The story here really begins to open up by the third paragraph, where Micaela relates a surprising event—the "change" in a relative's sexuality—and shows how her family learned a valuable lesson in acceptance as a result.
• It's got a positive spin: Even though the essay discusses the challenges for a family to come together, it ultimately ends on a high note. This reveals to us a lot about Micaela's character, especially her commitment to harmony and her open-mindedness toward others.

4 Essential Tips for Your UGA Essays

Now, it's time to wrap up with some final helpful tips for your UGA essays.

#1: Be as Specific as Possible

Specificity is key to producing an effective and compelling college essay. In both your UGA essays, make sure you're being as specific as you can be: use real names of people or places, describe the emotions you felt at the time, and tell us what was said, both by whom and to whom.

Details are what will ultimately make the UGA admissions committee be able to more easily relate to your experiences, passions, and point of view. So don't forget to include them!

#2: Use an Authentic Voice

The essays are the time for your personality to shine, so don't hold back— use your natural voice to tell your story. It's OK to tell some jokes or emphasize your love of flowery language with a few poetic metaphors, for example.

That said, essays don't give you free rein to be impolite or to completely break the conventions of English grammar, so know what your limits are as you write.

#3: Write Concisely

You only have up to 350 words for the supplemental UGA essay, so it's important to focus on being concise. If one of your rough drafts exceeds the word limit by a lot, you can try to trim it down by deleting any irrelevant or wordy passages.

#4: Remember to Edit and Proofread

Finally, don't forget to edit and proofread your UGA essays! As you edit, spend time looking for the following:

• Irrelevant passages, phrases, and/or sentences
• Redundant words, phrases, and/or descriptions
• Awkward-sounding or misplaced phrases/passages
• Errors in spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation

Once you've done your own edit of your UGA essays, give them to someone to look over, such as a teacher, parent, or older sibling. Ask this person to proofread the essays and to offer you any advice they might have on how you can improve them in terms of organization, examples or details, word choice, etc.

What's Next?

Applying to other colleges in the eastern United States? Then check out our in-depth guides for tips on how to write the Georgia Tech essays , the Duke essays , and the Johns Hopkins essay .

Lots of colleges use the Common App and require an essay submitted through this system. Read our guide to learn all about the Common App essay prompts and how you can ensure your essay will impress admissions committees.

Still want to know more about UGA? Take a look at our UGA admissions requirements page to get info on the GPA and test scores needed to secure admission to this popular school.

Hannah received her MA in Japanese Studies from the University of Michigan and holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California. From 2013 to 2015, she taught English in Japan via the JET Program. She is passionate about education, writing, and travel.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

University of Georgia

• Cost & scholarships
• Essay prompt

Want to see your chances of admission at University of Georgia?

We take every aspect of your personal profile into consideration when calculating your admissions chances.

University of Georgia’s 2023-24 Essay Prompts

Impactful book short response.

The transition from middle to high school is a key time for students as they reach new levels of both academic and personal discovery. Please share a book (novel, non-fiction, etc.) that had a serious impact on you during this time. Please focus more on why this book made an impact on you and less on the plot/theme of the book itself (we are not looking for a book report).

We are not restricting you to the exact years of 8th-9th grades, but rather the general timeframe of the middle to high school transition, which can extend somewhat further than one year on each end. Feel free to use your discretion in your choice of the timeline focused on the shift to your high school years.*

What will first-time readers think of your college essay?

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

University of Georgia Essay Example by an Accepted Student

The University of Georgia is a large public research institute and one of the top public schools in the nation. If it is one of your school choices, it’s important to write strong essays to help your application stand out. In this post, we’ll share an essay a real student has submitted to the University of Georgia. (Names and identifying information have been changed, but all other details are preserved).

Please note: Looking at examples of real essays students have submitted to colleges can be very beneficial to get inspiration for your essays. You should never copy or plagiarize from these examples when writing your own essays. Colleges can tell when an essay isn’t genuine and will not view students favorably if they plagiarized. 

Read our University of Georgia es say breakdown to get a comprehensive overview of this year’s supplemental prompt.

Essay Example – Humor in Cooking

Prompt: Tell us an interesting or amusing story about yourself from your high school years.

Cooking is one of those activities at which people are either extremely talented or completely inept. Personally, I’ve found that I fall right in the middle, with neither prodigal nor abhorrent talents. After all, it’s just following instructions, right? Unfortunately, one disastrous night in my kitchen has me questioning that logic.

The task was simple enough: cook a turkey stir fry. In theory, it’s an extremely simple dish. However, almost immediately, things went awry. While I was cutting onions, I absentmindedly rubbed at my eyes and smeared my mascara. (Keep this in mind; it’ll come into play later.) I then proceeded to add the raw turkey to the vegetable pot. Now, as any good chef knows, this means that either the vegetables will burn or the turkey will be raw. I am admittedly not a good chef.

After a taste test, I decided to take a page out of the Spice Girls’ book and “spice up my life”, adding some red chili paste. This was my fatal mistake. The bottle spilled everywhere. Pot, counter, floor, I mean everywhere . While trying to clean up the mess, my hands ended up covered in sauce.

Foolishly, I decided to taste my ruined meal anyway. My tongue felt like it was on fire and I sprinted to the bathroom to rinse my mouth. I looked in the mirror and, noticing the raccoon eyes formed by my mascara, grabbed a tissue. What I had neglected to realize was that chili paste had transferred to the tissue—the tissue which I was using to wipe my eyes. I don’t know if you’ve ever put chili paste anywhere near your eyes, but here’s a word of advice: don’t. Seriously, don’t .

I fumbled blindly for the sink handle, mouth still on fire, eyes burning, presumably looking like a character out of a Tim Burton film. After I rinsed my face, I sat down and stared at my bowl of still-too-spicy and probably-somewhat-raw stir fry, wondering what ancient god had decided to take their anger out on me that night, and hoping I would never incur their wrath ever again.

What the Essay Did Well

This is a great essay for the prompt! Don’t assume that the admissions committee wants deep, personal stories with hard-earned lessons in every essay. They are people too, and they want to be engaged with  amusing stories. This essay does a great job of being light, playful, and funny, while still revealing a lot about the student who wrote it.

Starting off with the story the student chose, it works so well because it is so specific. Focusing the essay on a short period of time—making dinner—allows the student to include a lot of details that wouldn’t have fit in an essay that tried to explain their entire history with cooking. This is proof that zeroing in on what might seem like a mundane experience can make for a really strong essay.

Another thing this essay does really well is structure the story in a clear, sequential manner. The essay starts by setting expectations for the student’s cooking abilities, which builds anticipation for the reader. Then, the essay follows the various steps of the cooking process almost like following a recipe. The beginning of each paragraph establishes each new step of the story—”The task was simple enough”; “After a taste test”; “Foolishly, I decided to taste my ruined meal anyway”; “I fumbled blindly for the sink handle”—which creates momentum for the essay that makes reading it quick and easy.

Perhaps what makes this essay so stellar is how much the student’s voice shines through. This student is unapologetically themselves and admits to their shortcomings as a chef. By sharing a funny and embarrassing story, the admissions committee reading the essay gets a much better sense of the student’s character and personality than if they had shared a story about the time they scored the winning goal at the soccer game. The language is casual and informal and it feels much more like the student is telling a story than writing an essay, which should be the goal of any college essay.

Another aspect of this essay that really allows the student’s voice to shine and makes it so enjoyable to read is the humor. Including humor into essays can sometimes be hard, but when it’s done successfully it give the reader a sense of your personality and can brighten their day. Including interjections like “(Keep this in mind; it’ll come into play later.)” and references to pop culture like “I decided to take a page out of the Spice Girls’ book and ‘spice up my life'” gave the audiences little chuckles as they read. Especially for a prompt that wants an amusing story, the humorous tone and inclusion of jokes throughout the essay really made this essay stand out.

What Could Be Improved

There isn’t much this student could do to improve the essay. It’s very well-written and a perfect response to the prompt. However, to really strengthen the essay, the student could remove the first paragraph. The first paragraph isn’t bad, and it starts to introduce some of the humor seen throughout the essay, but it doesn’t directly relate to the story being told. Removing the first paragraph would allow the student to jump right into the action of the story and have more words to add details and more jokes during the rest of the essay.

Where to Get Your University of Georgia Essays Edited

Do you want feedback on your University of Georgia  essays? After rereading your essays countless times, it can be difficult to evaluate your writing objectively. That’s why we created our free Peer Essay Review tool , where you can get a free review of your essay from another student. You can also improve your own writing skills by reviewing other students’ essays. 

If you want a college admissions expert to review your essay, advisors on CollegeVine have helped students refine their writing and submit successful applications to top schools. Find the right advisor for you to improve your chances of getting into your dream school!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

The Ultimate Guide to the University of Georgia's Supplemental Essays

Applying to the University of Georgia (UGA)? You're on the right path! UGA's beautiful campus, renowned academic programs, and spirit of community make it a top choice for many students. The college application process often comes with writing supplemental essays, and UGA is no exception. This blog post aims to guide you on how to best approach these UGA supplemental essays for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle.

UGA Supplemental Essay Prompt #1

The college admissions process can create anxiety. In an attempt to make it less stressful, please tell us an interesting or amusing story about yourself from your high school years that you have not already shared in your application.

Approach: This prompt invites you to share a unique aspect of your high school life. It could be an anecdote about a memorable event, a surprising hobby, or an unusual skill you have. Keep the tone light and enjoyable to read. Show your personality through this essay; let your sense of humor or interesting perspective shine!

During my sophomore year of high school, I decided to try out for the school's ultimate frisbee team, despite never having touched a frisbee before. In my first practice, my throws looked more like lopsided boomerangs than smooth, flat discs. At the team’s first game, I was given the task of throwing the first "pull," the ultimate frisbee equivalent of a kickoff. My nerves took over, and instead of the frisbee soaring downfield, it flew straight up and then veered right, landing in the nearby tennis court. This sparked a roaring laughter from both teams, and even the referee couldn’t contain his chuckles. I was mortified but joined the laughter because of the absurdity of the situation. That moment of shared laughter taught me the value of not taking myself too seriously and helped me bond with my teammates. By the end of the season, my throws had improved, and while I'll never be an ultimate frisbee champion, I'll always be the champion of good humor on the team.

UGA Supplemental Essay Prompt #2

The University of Georgia community creates, contributes, and applies knowledge in many ways. Describe an example of your leadership and the impact it had on others.

Approach: Here, UGA wants to understand how you lead and contribute to a community. Reflect on moments when you stepped up to take charge—maybe in an academic setting, a club, a sports team, or volunteering. How did your leadership make a difference? Remember, leadership isn't just about being the president of a club. You could have demonstrated leadership through initiative, teamwork, or problem-solving.

In my junior year, I served as the project manager for our school's Robotics Club. Our team was tasked with designing a robot for a local competition, but we hit a snag when our design kept failing during tests. As project manager, I decided to take a new approach. I organized a brainstorming session, where everyone, including the newest members, was encouraged to propose solutions. One of the freshman members suggested a minor adjustment to the weight distribution, which many had overlooked. His solution turned out to be the key to fixing our design! By fostering an environment where every voice was valued, we not only built a successful robot but also strengthened our team cohesion.

UGA Supplemental Essay Prompt #3 (Optional)

In our diverse and interdependent world, please tell us about an experience that demonstrated or gave you the opportunity to understand the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Approach: UGA values diversity and inclusion, and this prompt asks you to share an experience where you came to understand its significance. It could be a personal encounter, an event, or a revelation from a book or film. The key is to convey your ability to learn from diverse perspectives and experiences and to contribute to an inclusive campus culture.

In high school, I volunteered for a local organization that supports refugee resettlement. One of my primary tasks involved tutoring a young girl from Syria. The language barrier and cultural differences made the task challenging at first, but I gradually found ways to connect with her through visuals, storytelling, and games. The experience showed me the value of patience, empathy, and open-mindedness in understanding and appreciating the diverse backgrounds and experiences of others. It also reinforced the importance of equity in access to education, regardless of one's origins.

UGA Supplemental Essay Short Answer Question

UGA’s 2023 First-Year Odyssey Program offers more than 300 seminar courses for new students. Which do you find most appealing and why?

Approach: Research is key here. Explore the First-Year Odyssey program, select a seminar that genuinely interests you, and articulate why. Link it back to your academic interests, career goals, or intellectual curiosity.

Sure, let's dive into example responses for each of the University of Georgia supplemental essays.

UGA Supplemental Essay Prompt #3

I find "Unleashing Creativity Through Visual Storytelling" particularly appealing among UGA's First-Year Odyssey seminars. As a budding filmmaker, this course aligns with my passion for storytelling and my desire to delve deeper into the techniques of visual narration. The opportunity to analyze the work of acclaimed filmmakers and apply those insights to a project of my own is thrilling. Moreover, it would be invaluable in preparing me for my intended major in Film Studies.

Remember, your essays are a chance to showcase your personality, experiences, values, and goals. Be authentic, thoughtful, and concise. Tailor your responses to UGA, showing why you're a good fit for their community.

Related posts

Master the Georgia Tech Supplemental Essays for 2023-2024 Admissions

Demystifying Georgetown University's Supplemental 2023-2024 Essays

The Comprehensive Guide to the University of Georgia

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

UGA Supplemental Essay 2023-24 – Prompt and Advice

July 14, 2023

Over 43,000 students from around the world applied for a place in the UGA Class of 2027 . Further, the EA round in the 2022-23 cycle broke the previous year’s all-time high mark. This means that the UGA supplemental essay may be even more important in 2023-24 than in previous years.

Last year, the average incoming freshman took 10 AP, IB, or dual enrollment courses in high school. The average student also earned a weighted GPA above a 4.0. The GPA range for admitted freshmen was 1270-1470. The purpose of this information isn’t to engender fear in the hearts of Bulldog hopefuls; rather, we want to make sure that you take the task of presenting yourself in the best possible light very seriously.

 (Want to learn more about How to Get Into the University of Georgia? Visit our blog entitled:  How to Get Into the University of Georgia: Admissions Data and Strategies  for all of the most recent admissions data as well as tips for gaining acceptance.)

Although it only has one (brand new) general essay prompt, UGA’s supplemental section still affords applicants an opportunity to illustrate what makes them uniquely qualified for admission. Below is the University of Georgia’s supplemental prompt for the 2023-24 admissions cycle along with our advice for composing an effective essay.

2023-2024 University of Georgia Essay Question

“The transition from middle to high school is a key time for students as they reach new levels of both academic and personal discovery. Please share a book (novel, non-fiction, etc.) that had a serious impact on you during this time. Please focus more on why this book made an impact on you and less on the plot/theme of the book itself (we are not looking for a book report).”

FYI – We are not restricting you to the exact years of 8th-9th grades, but rather the general timeframe of the middle to high school transition, which can extend somewhat further than one year on each end. Feel free to use your discretion in your choice of the timeline focused on the shift to your high school years.

(200-300 Words)

UGA Supplemental Essays 2023-24 (Continued)

This isn’t your average supplemental essay so make sure you don’t produce an average response. The highly personal nature of this prompt gives you the chance to make a strong impression on a UGA admissions officer. Since you won’t have a chance to interview at this large flagship school, this essay (as well as the main Common App essay) is one of the best chances you’ll have to forge an intimate connection with a member of the admissions committee.

You may have to dig back into your childhood bookshelves for this one. If you are having trouble, referring to the following lists may jog your memory:

Common Middle School-Assigned Texts

• The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
• Night by Elie Wiesel
• Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
• Number the Stars by Lois Lowry
• The Giver by Lois Lowry
• Roll of Thunder , Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor
• The entire Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
• Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• The Call of the Wild by Jack London
• The Pigman by Paul Zindel
• Hatchet by Gary Paulsen

Common 10th-Grade Assigned Texts

• Animal Farm by George Orwell
• Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
• Hiroshima by John Hersey
• A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
• The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe
• Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• Walden by Henry David Thoreau
• Black Boy by Richard Wright

Of course, the book you pick may not have been assigned by a teacher, Additionally, note that the instructions give you the right to move back into 7th grade or forward into 10th grade if you wish. Remember, it can be a fiction or non-fiction text.

Big-picture thoughts on the “middle school book” essay

With a 300-word limit, you have a substantial amount of real estate to play around with here. There is enough space in which to tell a fairly substantial and detailed story. Still, in all likelihood, getting this one precisely right will involve a round or two of revision, ideally with some insight and feedback from a trusted adult or peer in the process. Some tips to keep in mind include:

• Don’t feel boxed into one particular structure for this essay. You could tell a story in multiple acts or present a slice-of-life vignette that took place in a single afternoon.
• You can use this opportunity to reveal something deep and meaningful about your personality/character.
• Make sure the content of this essay doesn’t overlap with your Common App essay. Always remember that an actual human being is going to be reading both documents; they don’t want to read two similar accounts of the same event.

How important is the UGA supplemental essay?

The essays (both the Common App essay and the supplemental one) are “considered” by the UGA admissions committee. This places them on the same tier of importance as recommendations, extracurricular activities, talent/ability, character/personal qualities, first-generation status, volunteer work, and work experience.

At UGA, three factors are “most important” in the admissions process. Those are: rigor of your coursework, GPA, and standardized test scores. However, application components like the supplemental essay can serve as a critical tie-breaker between similarly-credentialed applicants.

Want Personalized Essay Assistance with your UGA Supplemental Essay?

If you are interested in working with one of College Transitions’ experienced and knowledgeable essay coaches as you craft your UGA supplemental essay, we encourage you to get a quote  today.

• College Essay

Andrew Belasco

A licensed counselor and published researcher, Andrew's experience in the field of college admissions and transition spans two decades. He has previously served as a high school counselor, consultant and author for Kaplan Test Prep, and advisor to U.S. Congress, reporting on issues related to college admissions and financial aid.

• 2-Year Colleges
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Search/Knowledge
• College Success
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High School Success
• High Schools
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Private High School Spotlight
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

University of Georgia 2023-24 Supplemental Essay Prompt Guide

Early Action: Oct 15

Regular Decision Deadline: Jan 1

You Have: 

University of Georgia 2023-24 Application Essay Question Explanations 

The Requirements: 1 essays of 200-300 words

Supplemental Essay Type(s): Oddball

T he transition from middle to high school is a key time for students as they reach new levels of both academic and personal discovery. Please share a book (novel, non-fiction, etc.) that had a serious impact on you during this time. Please focus more on why this book made an impact on you and less on the plot/theme of the book itself (we are not looking for a book report).” (200-300 words)

This prompt asks you to discuss a book that made a big impression on you as you navigated the transition from middle to high school. At CEA, we always recommend that you choose an unexpected work in order to stand out from the pack, but ultimately, you should aim for authenticity rather than uniqueness. If Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was the book you turned to in the beginning of freshman year, where you found not only fantastical escape, but also an accurate reflection of the struggles of fitting in (even if you weren’t the “chosen one”), then write about that! But a word of warning if you choose a more commonly read book such as those from the Wizarding World: your essay has to go above and beyond if it has any chance of making an impression on the admissions department at UGA. 

If, however, there is another less-mainstream book that struck a chord with you, we encourage you to select that one to elaborate upon. No matter your choice, as you contemplate the prompt, ask yourself: Which characters have inspired you? Which plotlines have stayed with you long after you closed the book? How did you apply what you took from the story to your own life?

Regardless of the book you choose, try to give yourself as much time as possible to reflect on its impact and the role it played in helping you navigate your introduction to high school. As always, it’s your job to tell admissions a story, one that reveals information about who you are, what you care about, and/or what inspires you.

About Kat Stubing

View all posts by Kat Stubing »

We have school-specific prompt guides for almost 100 schools.

Contact us for information on rates and more!

• I am a * Student Parent Potential Partner School Counselor Private College Counselor
• Name * First Last
• Phone Type Mobile Landline
• Street Address
• Address City State / Province / Region Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Côte d'Ivoire Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Réunion Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Sweden Switzerland Syria Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, the United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Türkiye US Minor Outlying Islands Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Åland Islands Country
• Which best describes you (or your child)? High school senior High school junior College student College grad Other
• How did you find CEA? Internet Search New York Times Guidance counselor/school Social Media YouTube Friend Special Event Delehey College Consulting Other
• Common App and Coalition Essays
• Supplemental Essays
• University of California Essays
• University of Texas Essays
• Resume Review
• Post-Grad Essays
• Specialized Services
• Waitlist Letters
• Private School Essays
• General College Counseling
• School list with priorities noted:
• Anything else we should know?
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

School Stats:

• Agnes Scott College
• Alvernia University
• American University
• Amherst College
• Babson College
• Bard College
• Barnard College
• Baylor University
• Bennington College
• Bentley University
• Berry College
• Bethany College
• Bishop’s University
• Boston College
• Boston University (BU)
• Bowdoin College
• Brandeis University
• Brown University
• Bryn Mawr College
• Bucknell University
• Butler University
• California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
• California Lutheran University
• Capitol Technology University
• Carleton College
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Catawba College
• Centre College
• Chapman University
• Claremont McKenna College
• Clark University
• College of Mount Saint Vincent
• College of William and Mary
• College of Wooster
• Colorado College
• Colorado School of Mines
• Columbia University
• Cornell University
• Culver-Stockton College
• D'Youville University
• Dartmouth College
• Davidson College
• Drexel University
• Duke University
• Earlham College
• Elon University
• Emerson College
• Emory University
• Flagler College
• Fordham University
• George Mason University
• Georgetown University
• Georgia State University
• Georgia Tech
• Gonzaga University
• Harvard University
• Harvey Mudd College
• Haverford College
• Hillsdale College
• Hofstra University
• Illinois Institute of Technology
• Illinois Wesleyan University
• Indiana University Bloomington
• Ithaca College
• Johns Hopkins University
• Kalamazoo College
• Lafayette College
• Lehigh University
• Lewis and Clark College
• Linfield University
• Loyola Marymount University (LMU)
• Lynn University
• Macalester College
• Malone University
• Manchester University
• Marist College
• Mary Baldwin University
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• Meredith College
• Monmouth College
• Moravian University
• Morehouse College
• Mount Holyoke College
• New York University (NYU)
• North Park University
• Northwestern University
• Occidental College
• Oklahoma City University
• Olin College of Engineering
• Pepperdine University
• Pitzer College
• Pomona College
• Princeton University
• Providence College
• Purdue University
• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Rice University
• Saint Elizabeth University
• Santa Clara University
• Sarah Lawrence College
• Scripps College
• Seattle Pacific University
• Smith College
• Soka University of America
• Southern Methodist University
• St. John’s College
• Stanford University
• Stonehill College
• Swarthmore College
• Syracuse University
• Texas A&M University
• Texas Christian University
• The College of Idaho
• The George Washington University
• The New School
• Trinity College
• Tufts University
• Tulane University
• University of California
• University of Central Florida (UCF)
• University of Chicago
• University of Cincinnati
• University of Colorado Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Georgia
• University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• University of Maryland
• University of Massachusetts Amherst
• University of Miami
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)
• University of North Carolina at Charlotte
• University of North Carolina at Greensboro
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma
• University of Oregon
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Richmond
• University of San Diego
• University of San Francisco
• University of Southern California (USC)
• University of Texas at Austin
• University of Tulsa
• University of Vermont
• University of Virginia (UVA)
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Vanderbilt University
• Vassar College
• Villanova University
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• Washington and Lee University
• Washington University in St. Louis
• Wellesley College
• Williams College
• Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• Yale University

Want free stuff?

We thought so. Sign up for free instructional videos, guides, worksheets and more!

One-On-One Advising

Common App Essay Prompt Guide

Supplemental Essay Prompt Guide

• YouTube Tutorials
• Our Approach & Team
• Undergraduate Testimonials
• Postgraduate Testimonials
• Where Our Students Get In
• CEA Gives Back
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Private School Admissions
• International Student Admissions
• Common App Essay Guide
• Supplemental Essay Guide
• Coalition App Guide
• The CEA Podcast
• Admissions Stats
• Notification Trackers
• Deadline Databases
• College Essay Examples
• Academy and Worksheets
• Waitlist Guides
• Get Started

UGA Application and Status Page

Welcome to the primary login page for Undergraduate Applicants to UGA, High School Counselors, and Orientation Registrants! To ensure the privacy and confidentiality of your personal information, your web application is encrypted by our secure server before being transmitted over the Internet.

The University of Georgia is a unit of the University System of Georgia.

The University of Georgia does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, veteran status or disability in employment or admission or access to its programs and activities. Inquiries concerning this policy should be directed to the University’s Equal Opportunity Office at (706) 542-7912.

If you have a disability and need assistance to obtain this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Office of Undergraduate Admissions at (762) 400-8800. Click here to review the full application deadline page. Application Opening Dates: Summer/Fall 2024 - First Year and Athens Transfer applications are closed. Summer/Fall 2024 - Non-Athens campus Transfers as well as Study Abroad and Transient applications are open. Fall 2024 - Dual Enrollment Applications are open. Please click here if you have already submitted your application and wish to check your application status

• Toggle Search Bar
• Planning for UGA
• Admission Statistics
• First Year First Year Admission Criteria Home-Educated Students College Credit from Testing & DE Self-Reported Grades Admissions Tips, Hints & Myths
• International
• Transfer Transfer Equivalency Transfer FAQ
• Other Students
• Schools & Colleges
• Student Services
• Financial Aid
• Georgia Residency
• Scholarships
• Status Portal
• Counselor FAQ
• Counselor Portal
• Meet the Admissions Officers
• UGA Near You
• Request Information

• Search All Scholarships
• Exclusive Scholarships
• Easy Scholarships to Apply For
• No Essay Scholarships
• Scholarships for HS Juniors
• Scholarships for HS Seniors
• Scholarships for College Students
• Scholarships for Grad Students
• Scholarships for Women
• Scholarships for Black Students
• Scholarships
• Student Loans
• College Admissions
• Financial Aid
• Scholarship Winners
• Scholarship Providers

Student-centric advice and objective recommendations

Higher education has never been more confusing or expensive. Our goal is to help you navigate the very big decisions related to higher ed with objective information and expert advice. Each piece of content on the site is original, based on extensive research, and reviewed by multiple editors, including a subject matter expert. This ensures that all of our content is up-to-date, useful, accurate, and thorough.

Our reviews and recommendations are based on extensive research, testing, and feedback. We may receive commission from links on our website, but that doesn’t affect our editors’ opinions. Our marketing partners don’t review, approve or endorse our editorial content. It’s accurate to the best of our knowledge when posted. You can find a complete list of our partners here .

How to Ace the 2023/2024 UGA Supplemental Essays

Ginny Howey is a former content writer at Scholarships360. Ginny graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in May 2022 with a degree in Media and Journalism (Advertising/PR focus) and minors in Entrepreneurship and Spanish. Ginny’s professional experience includes two summers as a writer intern at global creative consultancy BCG BrightHouse. More recently, Ginny worked as a content marketing intern for Durham-based software engineering bootcamp Momentum, where she gained SEO skills. She has also written freelance articles on emerging tech for A.I. startup Resultid.

Learn about our editorial policies

Maria Geiger is Director of Content at Scholarships360. She is a former online educational technology instructor and adjunct writing instructor. In addition to education reform, Maria’s interests include viewpoint diversity, blended/flipped learning, digital communication, and integrating media/web tools into the curriculum to better facilitate student engagement. Maria earned both a B.A. and an M.A. in English Literature from Monmouth University, an M. Ed. in Education from Monmouth University, and a Virtual Online Teaching Certificate (VOLT) from the University of Pennsylvania.

Many colleges’ supplemental essay questions touch on common themes, such as your academic interests or what communities you belong to. The UGA supplemental essays, however, are a different story. The University of Georgia asks students to answer a unique, playful prompt that asks you to share a memorable high school story. 

Let’s explore this unconventional prompt and how to craft an excellent response. 

Also see:  How to write an essay about yourself

“The college admissions process can create anxiety. In an attempt to make it less stressful, please tell us an interesting or amusing story about yourself from your high school years that you have not already shared in your application (200-350 words)” 

Try not to roll your eyes at an essay prompt saying it hopes to de-stress the college process. Seriously, embrace this message! There is still expectation to write a nice essay, of course; but trust that admissions wants you to stop putting so much pressure on yourself. Treat this space as an enjoyable opportunity to share a story reflective of your personality. Brainstorming with this more relaxed mindset ensures your voice comes across natural and authentic. 

At the same time, the openness of this response can be overwhelming. After all, high school comes with four years of ‘interesting’ and ‘amusing’ stories–how can you pick just one? Start by making a list of stories that stand out when you reflect on high school. Next, look at what you’ve conveyed about yourself through your personal statement and activities section. Which character traits have you not revealed that are key to who you are? Or, is there a value you emphasize throughout your application that another story can strengthen? 

Sample story ideas

One example could be writing about the time you completely bombed your tenth grade piano recital performance. This anecdote definitely ticks the ‘amusing’ response. Describing a cringe-worthy moment which you now laugh about showcases humility. It also reveals that you have hobbies, took a risk to play on-stage, and handled the embarrassment with composure and perseverance. 

Another route might be related to your intended major, graphic design. You could talk about making a mock-up of an album cover for your favorite artist. After DM’ing it to them on Instagram, the fact that they used your work on their next record is truly remarkable! This definitely qualifies as an ‘interesting’ story. It shows your initiative, talent, and genuine love for your area of study, as well. 

What is awesome about this prompt is the creative freedom it gives your writing. For the first example, you should set the scene by describing the iconic chords of “Bennie and the Jets” struck so egregiously so off-key. Then the panic that set in. Your mind going blank, fingers sweating. Almost throwing in the towel. The awkward applause. For the second example, the inspiration for the album. The hours spent tweaking the message you’d send in your favorite artist’s inbox. Show off your writing and storytelling skills here! 

Also see:  What looks good on college applications?

Questions to consider: 

• Have you had any interactions with famous people or your role models?
• What is a stroke of bad luck you’ve experienced? How did you deal with it? 
• Do you have any impactful stories from traveling? 
• What is your go-to icebreaker or fun fact? 

Also see:  How to write a 250 word essay

Additional resources

As you’re working on college applications, we’re sure that you’ve juggling a lot of tasks at once. There are many decisions to be made and things to accomplish. Luckily, we can help. Check out our guide on how many colleges to apply to , how to find safety, reach, and match schools , and how to get a college application fee waiver . We can also help you fill out your Common App Activities and Additional Information sections to ensure that you present every aspect of your application as best you can. Finally, check out our insider’s perspective of what happens inside a college admissions office to get an idea of how your application will be reviewed. Good luck!

Other colleges to consider

• Georgia Tech (Atlanta, GA)
• Tulane University (New Orleans, LA)
• University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI)

Next steps for students

We hope you feel ready to rock the UGA supplemental essays after reading our guide. By now, you should have all the tools to take a successful trip down high school memory lane. Have fun with this prompt and your sincerity will be evident! Make sure that you apply for all the scholarships you qualify for too!

Start your scholarship search

• Vetted scholarships custom-matched to your profile
• Access exclusive scholarships only available to Scholarships360 members

Scholarships360 Recommended

10 Tips for Successful College Applications

Coalition vs. Common App: What is the difference?

College Application Deadlines 2023-2024: What You Need to Know

Trending now.

How to Convert Your GPA to a 4.0 Scale

PSAT to SAT Score Conversion: Predict Your Score

What Are Public Ivy League Schools?

3 reasons to join scholarships360.

• Automatic entry to our $10,000 No-Essay Scholarship
• Personalized matching to thousands of vetted scholarships
• Quick apply for scholarships exclusive to our platform

By the way...Scholarships360 is 100% free!

Undergraduate Terry Major Admissions

All UGA students who plan to pursue a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree or the Bachelor of Arts (AB) Economics degree are initially admitted to the Terry College of Business as intended-business majors. Students can apply to a Terry major once they meet all application eligibility requirements, typically during their second year at UGA.

Already admitted to a Terry major and wish to change or add a Terry major? Apply to modify your Terry major .

Deadlines & Decisions

Major selections.

BBA majors include Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, Management Information Systems, Marketing, Real Estate, and Risk Management and Insurance. The International Business co-major is offered in conjunction with other Terry BBA majors. Students should explore their Terry major options and review prospective student resources before applying.

Intended-BBA students apply to a first- and second-choice major. Students who are not accepted to a first-choice BBA major will be considered for acceptance to a second-choice BBA major; second-choice major options include Economics, Management, Real Estate, and Risk Management and Insurance. Applications will be evaluated based on specific selection criteria.

Terry Direct: UGA students in good standing with the Morehead Honors College who apply to a Terry College of Business major are guaranteed their first choice of a first (primary) major with the Terry College. This guarantee does not apply to second, double or co-majors. Note that a condition for being in “good standing” with the Morehead Honors College includes completing at least one semester of coursework at UGA and earning a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.40. Please see more details about Honors good standing requirements .

Application Eligibility Requirements

Students must meet the following application eligibility requirements by the application deadline to be considered eligible to apply. Meeting these minimum requirements does not guarantee admission to a Terry BBA or AB Economics major; applicants will be evaluated based on specific selection criteria.

If you have questions about whether you meet these eligibility requirements, please consult your UGA academic advisor.

Eligible for Current Enrollment at UGA

Applicants must be eligible for enrollment at the University of Georgia in the semester in which they apply to a Terry major. 

Minimum GPAs

• Applicants must be in “good academic standing” at UGA, meaning they must have a 2.0 or higher cumulative (UGA) GPA, or no cumulative GPA for a new transfer student.
• Applicants must also have a 2.6 or higher overall GPA (transfer and UGA coursework combined).

Course Requirements for BBA Applicants

BBA applicants must meet one of the following requirements during the semester of application:

• Have completed or are in-progress of completing of Areas I-V of the General Education Core Curriculum , OR
• Have a minimum of 58 credit hours completed or in progress of completion (not including P.E.)

BBA applicants must have successfully completed the following courses by the application deadline:

• Course credit or an exemption for MATH 1113/E or a higher-level MATH course (MATH 2200, MATH 2250, or MATH 2260) is required.
• ACCT 2101 – Principles of Accounting I

BBA applicants must have successfully completed or be enrolled in the following courses by the application deadline:

• ACCT 2102 – Principles of Accounting II
• ECON 2105 – Principles of Macroeconomics
• ECON 2106 – Principles of Microeconomics
• LEGL 2700 – Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business
• MIST 2090 – Introduction to Information Systems in Business
• BUSN 3000 – Applied Statistics and Data Analysis for Business

Course Requirements for AB Economics Applicants

AB Economics applicants must meet one of the following requirements during the semester of application:

• Have completed or are in-progress of completing of Areas I-VI of the AB Economics General Education Core Curriculum , OR

AB Economics applicants must have successfully completed the following course by the application deadline:

AB Economics applicants must have successfully completed or be enrolled in the following courses by the application deadline:

Testing Requirements

All applicants should read the detailed  Testing Requirement instructions  before submitting a Terry major application.

ACT /SAT Students are required to submit ACT or SAT scores and sub-scores to the University before being considered for admission to a major in the Terry College.

E-Proficiency Profile* In addition to required ACT/SAT scores, students may also supplement their application by submitting an  E-Proficiency Profile  (EPP; formerly ETS) score if they believe their ACT/SAT scores do not represent their current performance level. If you have not taken the ACT or SAT, you must take the EPP to be eligible to apply to a Terry major. Applicants can take the EPP a maximum of three times while a UGA student. Scores from all EPP attempts will be reported directly to the Terry College from UGA Testing Services, and the highest EPP score will be considered in a student’s application. 

Terry Accounting Exam* All Accounting and Finance applicants are required to submit an  Accounting Exam  score. Applicants can take the Accounting Exam a maximum of three times while a UGA student. Accounting scores will be recorded in Athena, and the highest score will be considered in a student’s application.

*UGA Testing Services administers the  E-Proficiency Profile  and the  Accounting Exam ; students can register online at  testing.uga.edu  to schedule a testing appointment.  

IMPORTANT:  Only test attempts  completed by the application deadline  will be considered. The UGA Testing Center has limited appointment availability for testing, especially as the Terry major application deadline approaches. Please do not delay in scheduling your testing appointment(s). We strongly recommend you schedule appointments early to ensure all testing attempts can be completed before the application deadline.

Accommodations Students registered with the Disability Resource Center are responsible for notifying their DRC Coordinator and Testing Services to receive testing accommodations for the E-Proficiency Profile or Accounting Exam.

Statement of Purpose

The Statement of Purpose is a brief essay (300-400 words) describing your interest in a major and future goals. A separate Statement of Purpose is required for each major.

International Business (IB) co-major applicants should describe their interests/goals in IB and their foreign language proficiency in their first-choice Statement of Purpose.

Important Reminders

Transfer Coursework: If any of the required coursework has not been posted to your UGA transcript, proof of coursework must be attached to the application by the application deadline. Applicants who do not provide proof of coursework by the deadline will become ineligible. Please use UGA Admission’s Transfer Equivalency tool to check transfer course equivalency.

In-Progress Coursework: In-progress coursework must be taken in the same semester in which students apply to a major (e.g., pre-registered summer courses will not satisfy eligibility requirements for spring admission cycle). Additionally, attendance in required courses must begin by the major application deadline each fall and spring (e.g., half-semester courses that begin after the major application deadline will not satisfy eligibility requirements).

Withdrawals: Students who withdraw from any required coursework during the semester in which they apply to a Terry major are at risk of having their major admission offer rescinded. Withdrawals that occur before the application semester will not be reported in a student’s application; however, such withdrawals may affect when a student is eligible to apply to a Terry major.

Connect With Us

Terry College Undergraduate Programs Office Email: [email protected] Phone: 706-542-5725

Undergraduate Admission

• Application Review Process
• Academic Preparation
• Standardized Tests
• Contribution to Community

Personal Essays

• Recommendations
• Interview for International Applicants
• Major Selection
• Institutional Fit

The purpose of the essays is to assess your writing ability and, more importantly, to learn more about you as an individual. This portion of the application helps us get to know you, assess mutual fit, and better understand what you could contribute to Georgia Tech.

Application Essay Prompts

Below are the Georgia Tech essay questions for 2023 applications. Both prompts are required of all applicants.

• Common Application Personal Essay: First-year applicants will choose one of seven essay prompts provided by Common App.
• Georgia Tech Short-Answer Question (max 300 words): Why do you want to study your chosen major specifically at Georgia Tech?

Start Your Essays

What Are We Looking for in Your Essays?

Essays are evaluated for both content and writing/grammatical skills. So, before submitting your application, you should take the time to edit and review your essay thoroughly. The traits of a strong essay include ones that:

• Demonstrate authenticity & self-awareness.
• Demonstrate thoughtfulness.
• Display attention to topic, style, and grammar.
• Demonstrate a student has thought about why Georgia Tech, specifically, is a fit for them and how their goals align with Georgia Tech’s Values . The Georgia Institute of Technology is a public research university established by the state of Georgia in Atlanta in 1885 and committed to developing leaders who advance technology and improve the human condition.

Our Advice for this Portion of the Application

• Get started early. Don’t wait until the last minute to complete your essays!
• Write and edit your essay in a document editor. Once you have the final draft, you can cut and paste it into your online application.
• Don’t write what you think we want to read. Write what you want to say!
• Don’t blow off the essay! We wouldn’t ask you to write it if we didn’t find it to be an important way to get to know you, and what you could bring to Georgia Tech.
• In the same way you would not copy directly from any other source you may incorporate into the writing process, you should not copy and paste directly out of any AI platform or submit work that you did not originally create. Instead, approach and consider any interaction with an AI tool as a learning experience that may help you generate ideas, provide alternative phrasing options, and organize your thoughts. Ultimately, we want to read and hear your unique and valuable writing style.

Per Georgia state law and Georgia Tech policy , all admission staff are mandatory reporters who are required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect of minors to appropriate authorities. Any statements in written materials, including anywhere in a student’s application or supporting materials, that give admission staff reasonable cause to believe abuse or neglect of someone under the age of 18 may have occurred must be reported to the Georgia Tech Police Department. Learn more about reporting requirements .

This website uses cookies. For more information, review our Privacy & Legal Notice . Questions? Please email [email protected] . OK

• Economic Impact
• Master Calendar
• Strategic Plan
• eLearning Commons
• Academic Calendars

Student Life

• Food Services
• Student Affairs
• Recreational Sports
• Student Accounts

Helpful Resources

• Financial Aid
• International Education
• Morehead Honors College
• Campus Directory
• Search UGA.edu
• News & Events
• News Features

UGA Class of 2023 achieves 96% career outcomes rate

The MBA App Slump Cost The Top U.S. B-Schools $3,444,990 Last Year

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share on Reddit

2022-2023 APP FEES, APPS, FEE INCOME, ADMITS & CLASS SIZES AT THE P&Q TOP 100

Source: u.s. news and b-schools.

DON’T MISS TOTAL MBA PAY AT THE P&Q TOP 100 B-SCHOOLS and HIGH & LOW MBA SALARIES AND BONUSES AT THE TOP 100 U.S. B-SCHOOLS

Questions about this article? Email us or leave a comment below.

• Stay Informed. Sign Up! Login Logout Search for:
• What Matters? And What More? 50 Successful Essays To The GSB & HBS
• Specialized Masters Program Directory Business Analytics Hub MBA Admissions Consultant Directory Online MBA Hub Home Assess My MBA Odds
• Poets&Quants’ 40-Under-40 Best MBA Professors Of 2024 (16,056 views)
• onTrack: A ‘Master Class’ On Getting Into Your Top MBA Programs (10,876 views)
• Where Fortune 1000 C-Suite Executives Earned Their MBAs (10,393 views)
• The 100 Best & Brightest MBAs: Class Of 2024 (7,462 views)
• Popular MBA Rankings Calculator Gets A 2024 Refresh (5,484 views)

Our Partner Sites: Poets&Quants for Execs | Poets&Quants for Undergrads | Tipping the Scales | We See Genius

• See us on twitter
• See us on instagram
• See us on facebook
• See us on linkedin

Medical Humanities & the Arts Program

Stanford storytelling and medicine scholars class of 2024, meet our team.

Originally from Atlanta, Georgia, Marit UyHam is a rising sophomore at Dartmouth College. She plans to study biology and hopes to attend medical school.  At Dartmouth, Marit works in a biological anthropology lab which analyzes microfossils with a focus on prehistoric China.  Outside of class, Marit is involved in multiple dance programs, and she plays violin with the Dartmouth Chamber Orchestra.

With over six years of experience in healthcare,  Amal Sharif has dedicated her career to improving patient outcomes through innovative approaches. Having worked at Highland Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in the East Bay, Amal has firsthand experience in high-pressure medical environments and understands the critical importance of effective communication and empathy in patient care. Amal holds a Mathematics, Psychology, and Economics degree from Laney College. Amal enjoys exploring her creativity through various artistic pursuits, such as pastel, and drawing.

Halle Boroski  is a senior at the College of William and Mary, finishing her degree in Neuroscience on the pre-medical track with a minor in Public Health and a concentration in Health, Society, and Wellness. Halle plans to pursue graduate school post-graduation before pursuing medical school. She is involved in W&M public health club, working at the admissions office and wellness center, and working in a research lab focused on learning and positive study techniques. In her spare time, Halle enjoys being with friends, reading, and walking in Williamsburg.

Meher Gandhi  is pursuing her Master’s in Comparative Literature at University of California, Davis. She has a BA triple major degree in English, Psychology and Media and a diploma in folklore and cultural studies. Her interest in medical humanities, especially memory studies and cognitive poetics, guides her work in the intersections between literature and psychology. Her research internship with the Center for Memory Studies, IIT Madras bolstered in her the desire to move ahead in this direction. She also holds experience in publishing (including Penguin Random House India), literary festivals, and art spaces. Her other interests include writing and reading poems, teaching, and exploring art and architecture. She believes that her future research works will feature a trialogue between literature, psychology, and architecture.

Peter Park  is a 4 th  year medical student pursuing Psychiatry. He has a background in theatre and comedy improv and has integrated his interests in medicine and the arts through hosting local events for medical students to share their experiences on stage via Stethoscope Stage and HuMed Short Story Night in partnership with TCU Burnett School of Medicine. Additionally, he is collaborating with TCU in establishing the Narrative Medicine Consortium of Texas to unite Texas medical schools in increasing Narrative Medicine education. His work has been featured on The Nocturnists Podcast, MedMic.com, and Crohn's & Colitis Young Adult Network. Peter plans to pursue Psychiatry with interests in Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Eating Disorders, and GI-adjacent Psychiatry. 

Keren Shafer is a rising MS1 at the John Sealy School of Medicine -UTMB Health-. She is pursuing a medical and master’s in public health degree as a stepping stone to becoming a pediatrician or OBGYN. She graduated with a Distinguished History degree with a double minor in Biology and Chemistry. Her interest in Historical writing includes women’s, Chinese, and medical history. She has presented her research at the College of Liberal and Fine Arts Conference at her Undergraduate institution; her most recent project was “Women in Medicine: A Look at Specialty Clusters.” She is now shifting towards immigrant narratives as a form of self-expression and ownership of her life experiences. Her hobbies include quilting, reading, and board games.

Tabitha Hiyane is an English literature student at UCLA and an Opinion columnist for the  Daily Bruin . Holding a vested interest in the medical humanities, her archival research has explored how intimate narratives of embodiment, contextualized through health and illness, are both particularized and shared as part of the human condition - the very stories inscribed in the histories of our humanity. While continuing to grow as a writer, she plans on applying to medical school, aiming to discover and put into practice what it means to care for another in all aspects of being.

Nada Kaissieh holds a Masters of Bioethics from Johns Hopkins University and is currently advancing her medical education at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, working towards her MD. With over six years of dedicated involvement in mental health advocacy, she champions for the betterment of psychiatric care. Combining her expertise in writing and photography, she endeavors to reshape community and cultural perceptions of mental illness. Nada spearheads an ongoing project aimed at integrating mental health education into local elementary schools, striving to increase visibility and accessibility to support and resources.

Soo Yeon (Jean) Chun is a rising junior at Stanford University planning to major in Symbolic Systems on the Neuroscience track. Since middle school, she has been fascinated by the creative, emotional, and linguistic capabilities of the mind. An aspiring psychiatrist and writer, she is deeply interested in the power of creative writing—particularly poetry —to guide and heal. In her free time, she enjoys drumming, discovering new music, and reading and writing poetry. 

Maria Luiza Fernandes is a sophomore undergraduate student from Brazil. She is graduating in Pharmacy and plans to become a neuroscientist. Her research interests cover a range of disciplines under the umbrella of the pharmaceutical profession and cognitive science. As an Immerse Education fellow, over the past year she has worked on a research project on Alzheimer's disease, including the applications of gene editing in the treatment of pathologies associated with the nervous system. She is currently involved in a learning community on psychopathologies and an executive member of FLOTA, a project aimed at developing young female leaders around the Americas.

Robinrenee Hamre is a sophomore undergraduate student at UCLA, majoring in Biology. She is a Native American student, originally from Anaheim, California. Robinrenee is passionate about studying Neonatology and pursuing a career in the medical field, in hopes to become a NICU Doctor.  Some of her hobbies are writing, running, and reading poetry.

Mehakpreet Kaur Saggu , a Pearson Scholar at the University of Toronto, is passionately devoted to making neuroscience and psychology approachable for everyone. Her journey into this field began with her love for literature, which sparked a sense of wonder and fascination with Oliver Sacks, and this ongoing saga of inspiration has continued to shape her work. From conducting research in the Decision Neuroscience Lab to helping establish a new Cognitive Science undergraduate journal, Mehakpreet's dedication to simplifying the complexities of the human brain is evident. She is grateful for the opportunity to merge her academic pursuits with her goal of bringing advanced science closer to public understanding. As a researcher, author, and advocate, she endeavors to share the wonders of the human brain, hoping to enlighten and serve the broader community.

Jess Skyleson (they/them) is a former aerospace engineer and Ayurvedic practitioner who began writing poetry after being diagnosed with stage IV cancer at age 39. Currently in remission, they’re now pursuing an MFA in Digital + Media at Rhode Island School of Design, with particular interests in narrative medicine, computational poetry, and sonic art. Their poetry has appeared in journals and anthologies throughout the US and UK, and they have been awarded the 2022 Hippocrates Poetry and Medicine Prize, an Honorable Mention in the Tor House Poetry Prize, and were a finalist for the Yemassee Poetry Prize and Kalanithi Writing Award.  They are presently exploring the integration of the body, poetry, and sound, and one of their sound poetry projects was recently selected for exhibition in the New Media category at Brown University’s Ivy Film Festival. Jess facilitates creative writing and art workshops for patients, medical providers, and caregivers, and they are hoping to develop collaborative pathways across art mediums and personal/professional experiences of medicine.

Emily Koseck is a medical student at Queen’s University in Canada. She is currently working at Toronto Metropolitan University on the development of a new medical school with an innovative approach to education that will meet the current pain points in the healthcare system. Her interests include improving healthcare delivery and outcomes through bioethics, trauma-informed care, and addressing systemic biases. Emily enjoys being active, spending time outdoors, and volunteering at a wildlife rehabilitation centre.

Shreya Gunda 

Grace Reed 

Sohini Dasgupta

You’re here today because you know the promise an education at the University of Georgia holds for your tomorrow. It all starts with the application, so it’s important to choose the right one for you. Explore below to learn more about each type of application we offer.

Don’t miss an essential deadline. Check on essential upcoming dates here.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Read the Federal Judge’s Ruling

A federal judge temporarily blocked part of a Florida law that criminalized transporting into the state anyone who lacked lawful immigration status, raising new legal questions for other states pursuing similar measures.

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 1 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN/Reid THE FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, V. ASHLEY MOODY, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 30], along with a Memorandum in Support of that Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Memorandum”) [ECF No. 30-1]. For the reasons we outline below, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.² THE FACTS which On May 10, 2023, Governor DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill 1718 (“SB 1718”), amended FLA. STAT. § 787.07 to impose criminal penalties on anyone “who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government 1 This litigation was originally styled The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc., et al. v. Ronald DeSantis, et al., 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN. But, since we've dismissed Governor DeSantis from the case, we hereby ORDER the Clerk of Court to restyle the litigation as follows: The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc., et al. v. Ashley Moody, et al., 23-cv-22655-ALTMAN. 2 The Motion is ripe for resolution. See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Response") [ECF No. 50]; Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Reply") [ECF No. 67].

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 2 of 40 since his or her unlawful entry from another country.” Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment (the "Complaint”) [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 65–66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07). Section 10 of SB 1718 provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (5), a person who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry from another country commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (2) A person commits a separate offense for each individual he or she transports into this state in violation of this section. (3) A person who transports a minor into this state in violation of subsection (1) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) A person who commits five or more separate offenses under this section during a single episode commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) (a) A person with a prior conviction under this section who commits a subsequent violation of this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (b) As used in paragraph (a), the term “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea agreement or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered. (6) Proof that a person knowingly and willfully presented false identification or gave false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting an investigation for a violation of this section gives rise to an inference that such person was aware that the transported individual has entered the United States in violation of the law and had not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry. (7) A person who is arrested for a violation of this section must be held in custody until brought before the court for admittance to pretrial release in accordance with chapter 903. Id. 66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07). The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 17, 2023, suing “Defendants Ronald D. DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida, Ashley Moody, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Nicholas B. Cox, Statewide Prosecutor,” and the state attorneys for all twenty of Florida's judicial circuits. Id. at 3. The organizational Plaintiff, the Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc. (the “Farmworker Association" or "FWAF"), is a "grassroots and community-based farmworker membership 2

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 3 of 40 organization" whose mission is to “support and build power among farmworker and rural low-income communities." Id. ¶¶ 15–16. “FWAF serves seasonal workers as well as migrant workers who travel with the seasons to harvest crops. To do so, FWAF's members travel back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year.” Id. ¶ 17. The individual Plaintiffs “belong to mixed-status families, churches, and communities.” Motion to Proceed Anonymously [ECF No. 29] at 1. “Their family members include U.S. citizens, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (‘SIJS') and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applicants, and undocumented immigrants.” Ibid. The Plaintiffs allege that "Section 10 of [SB 1718], Ch. 2023-40, Laws of Fla. (“Section 10°) unconstitutionally criminalizes the act of transporting a broad category of immigrants into Florida." Complaint ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 10 ("This action challenges Section 10 to prevent imminent harm that Plaintiffs and other Floridians, including both U.S. citizens and noncitizens, will suffer as the law goes into effect and is implemented. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to bar such egregious unconstitutional actions from occurring in their communities."). We dismissed Governor DeSantis from this case on December 21, 2023, because we found that (1) the Plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue him, and (2) he was immune from the claims the Plaintiffs advanced in their Complaint. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 84]. On February 9, 2024, we denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously, see Order Denying the Motion to Proceed Anonymously [ECF No. 86], and ordered the Plaintiffs to appear on the Docket using their own names, see Order Requiring Certificates of Interested Parties [ECF No. 87]. After we entered our Order Denying the Motion to Proceed Anonymously, two Plaintiffs— G.D.L. and M.G.—filed Notices of Voluntary Dismissal [ECF Nos. 90–91]. The seven remaining individual Plaintiffs then appeared by name. See Plaintiffs' Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement [ECF No. 92]. In this Order, therefore, we'll use the Plaintiffs' full names, even where their declarations (or the parties' papers) originally referred to them by their initials. 3

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 4 of 40 The Plaintiffs now ask us to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing Section 10 of SB 1718. We held a preliminary-injunction hearing on December 13, 2023, where the parties presented their oral arguments. See Minute Entry [ECF No. 83]; see also Dec. 13, 2023, Hr'g Tr. [ECF No. 85]. This Order follows. THE LAW "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the ‘burden of persuasion' as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (cleaned up). Those four familiar factors are: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest." Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005). A showing of irreparable injury is “the sine qua non of injunctive relief" and is the most important of the four factors. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (cleaned up). To satisfy this standard, the “plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief [must] demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,22 (2008). And a showing of irreparable injury “must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent." Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Chacon v. Granata, 515 F.2d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1975) (“An injunction is appropriate only if the anticipated injury is imminent and irreparable.”). Still, a district court cannot grant a preliminary injunction unless the moving party satisfies all four of the requirements. See Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Because Wreal must meet all four prerequisites to obtain a preliminary injunction, failure to meet even one dooms [his request].”).

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 5 of 40 "[W]here facts are bitterly contested and credibility determinations must be made to decide whether injunctive relief should issue,” district courts must hold an evidentiary hearing on the propriety of injunctive relief. McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1312 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing All Care Nursing Serv., 887 F.2d at 1538 (cleaned up)). At that hearing, the court sits as factfinder. See Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Where conflicting factual information places in serious dispute issues central to a party's claims and much depends upon the accurate presentation of numerous facts, the trial court errs in not holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve these hotly contested issues." (cleaned up)). In our case, we set an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion, at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence and to advance their respective positions. Despite this opportunity, the parties decided not to present any evidence and to proceed only with their written briefings (as supplemented by lengthy oral presentations). See Dec. 13, 2023, Hr'g Tr. at 4:22–24 (“THE COURT: Are you going to put on any evidence at all for any of these motions? [PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor."); see also id. at 5:1 ("THE COURT [referring to defense counsel, who did not object]: So neither are you."); id. at 67:17–19 (“THE COURT: All right. We'll take that up- with no evidence, right, just argument? [PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL]: Correct.”). I. Standing ANALYSIS As a threshold matter, the Defendants contend that all the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek a preliminary injunction here. See Response at 5. We disagree. To establish his standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010). "Where only injunctive relief is sought, only one plaintiff with standing is required." Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1333 5

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 6 of 40 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (emphasis added & cleaned up); see also ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Byrd, 608 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1153 (N.D. Fla. 2022) (Winsor, J.) (“[W]hen multiple plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, only one needs to show standing."); Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439 (2017) (“[W]hen there are multiple plaintiffs[,] [a]t least one plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint." (emphasis added)). In our case, at least one Plaintiff has standing to pursue this preliminary injunction. Take, for example, Andrea Mendoza Hinojosa. She's suffered an injury in fact because she's established “a realistic danger of sustaining direct injury" from "the statute's operation or enforcement.” Ga. Latino All. for Hum. Rts. v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1257 (11th Cir. 2012). In her Declaration, after all, she avers that she's transported undocumented immigrants (and is "100% willing to" continue transporting at least one undocumented immigrant) into the State of Florida, but (she says) she "believe[s] [she] should not have to risk jail time in order to get them life-saving care or to help them attend an appointment with USCIS, or for any other legitimate reason.” Declaration of Andrea Mendoza Hinojosa (the “Mendoza Decl.") [ECF No. 30-4] ¶¶ 14, 17. And her reluctance to engage in conduct she would otherwise have engaged in is sufficient to show an injury in fact. See W. Va. ex rel. Morrisey v. U.S. Dep't of the Treas., 59 F.4th 1124, 1137 (11th Cir. 2023) (“A plaintiff need not 'expose himself to liability' to have standing to challenge the enforcement of a law." (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128–29 (2007))). Ms. Mendoza's injury is also directly traceable to the passage of SB 1718, which she says prevents her from "do[ing] [her] job effectively” and “help[ing] people in [her] community." Mendoza Decl. ¶ 17; see also id. ¶¶ 5, 14, 17 (“Transporting individuals with various immigration statuses, including individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities, is a key part of my job.. SB 1718, however, has made me extremely anxious that my efforts to help [people who have not been inspected by the federal government] may result in significant jail time and prosecution 6

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 7 of 40 for me I operate my nonprofit on a limited budget, and I would face extreme financial hardship if forced to pay for my release on bond or for my criminal defense if I were arrested.”). Finally, Ms. Mendoza's injury would be redressed by an injunction against the enforcement of Section 10 because, with the statute enjoined, her conduct would no longer put her at risk of arrest or prosecution. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 4 (“In many cases, ‘redressability and traceability overlap as two sides of a causation coin."" (quoting Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1159 (10th Cir. 2005))). Carmenza Aragon has likewise established her standing to pursue this injunction. Ms. Aragon planned to drive her undocumented grandson—who has a petition pending for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status from Florida to Georgia to visit family members who live in Georgia. See Declaration of Carmenza Aragon (the “Aragon Decl.") [ECF No. 30-7] ¶¶ 5—6; see also id. ¶ 6 (“My grandson and I traveled to Georgia for a visit with family last October, and we were planning to go again this year.”). She then planned to drive her grandson back from Georgia to Florida. Ibid. Since the passage of SB 1718, however, Ms. Aragon “had to give up [her] trip to Georgia[.]" Id. ¶ 7. And this harm—not being permitted to travel with her grandson to Georgia—is ongoing: “I do not know when we will be able to go back to visit our family. Now that the transport law is in place, I am afraid to travel with my grandson. If I am traveling with him, I could be stopped and arrested for breaking the new transport law if the police believe I am transporting him. That idea fills me with panic . . . . I am getting older, and time with my loved ones is important.” Ibid. Having felt compelled to cancel her trip to see family because she reasonably feared arrest under Section 10—and having been prevented from taking her grandson to Georgia at any time since-Ms. Aragon has shown that she, too, has suffered (and continues to suffer) an injury in fact, even though she hasn't put herself at risk of an actual arrest. As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Taylor v. Polhill: Taylor has sufficiently alleged an injury in fact. Taylor challenges the Pre-Sale Testing Statute's constitutionality, arguing both that the statute violates his right to due process 7

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 8 of 40 and that it is preempted by federal law. In his complaint, Taylor alleges that, prior to giving up his license, he was a state-licensed hearing aid specialist for thirty years and had operated his own hearing aid retail store for over twenty-six years. Taylor also alleges that “[b]ut for Florida's prohibition for dispensing hearing aids without using its required fitting procedures and equipment, [he] would immediately begin dispensing hearing aids.” In other words, the only thing keeping Taylor from dispensing hearing aids is the threat of enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional Pre-Sale Testing Statute. And, as Florida's statutory scheme for dispensing hearing aids has been enforced against Taylor in the past, the chance that it will be enforced against him in the future is not speculative. Taylor is thus put in the position of either refraining from conduct he alleges to be unconstitutionally prohibited or engaging in such conduct and exposing himself to enforcement. The Constitution does not require that Taylor expose himself to enforcement of the statute before he can challenge the statute. Hence, Taylor has properly alleged an injury in fact. 964 F.3d 975, 980-81 (11th Cir. 2020). So, too, here: But for Section 10, Ms. Aragon would be driving her grandson to visit family in Georgia. And we have no reason to think that enforcement of Section 10 is unlikely or merely speculative.³ words: 3 A third Plaintiff, Maria Medrano Rios, has suffered an almost-identical injury in fact. In her I had planned to travel with my family to Texas, so that my children could visit their cousins and so that I could spend time with my brother and sister. I'd spoken to my brother and sister about this trip, and I told my children about it-everyone was very excited... Now, though, we can't take this trip. It is just too big a risk for my children and me. [My daughter] does not have an immigration case, and does not have any immigration status, even though she has applied for DACA. So, I am scared that she is not allowed to be brought back into Florida if we leave. And I don't know whether I can be driven back into Florida either, since I don't have any official status. I have a case in immigration court, where I am working to get immigration protection, and I have a As we'll discuss in more detail later, the Defendants claim that these Plaintiffs lack standing because "the individuals they plan to transport have been ‘inspected" within the meaning of Section 10. Response at 9. They therefore promise that “[t]hese Plaintiffs face no credible threat of prosecution.” Ibid. But the Supreme Court has “warn[ed] against accepting as ‘authoritative' an Attorney General's interpretation of state law when 'the Attorney General does not bind the state courts or local law enforcement authorities." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 940 (2000) (quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 395 (1988)). Since we're “without power to adopt a narrowing construction of a state statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent,” Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 330 (1988) (emphasis added), we think enforcement against the individual Plaintiffs is sufficiently likely to satisfy Article III standing. 8

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 9 of 40 work permit based on this case, but the case is not yet completed. Because of this, I'm fearful that our family could be stopped and arrested coming back home[.] Declaration of Maria Medrano Rios (the “Medrano Rios Decl.") [ECF No. 30-8] ¶¶ 8, 10 (emphasis added). As with Ms. Aragon, the “only thing keeping [Ms. Medrano Rios] from” visiting her family outside of Florida is the looming threat of arrest under Section 10—which the Plaintiffs allege is unconstitutional. See Taylor, 964 F.3d at 980. Since Ms. Medrano Rios has been put in the position of either refraining from conduct she alleges to be unconstitutionally prohibited or engaging in the proscribed conduct and exposing herself to arrest and prosecution, she's established an ongoing injury in fact. See Medrano Rios Decl. ¶ 10 (noting that “I'm fearful”—present tense—“that our family could be stopped and arrested coming back home"). And both Ms. Aragon's and Ms. Medrano Rios's injuries are directly traceable to the passage of SB 1718 and would be redressed by an injunction against Section 10. Resisting, the Defendants argue that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing because their “conduct does not violate the statute.”4 Response at 10. In support of this view, the Defendants offer the following narrowing construction of Section 10: 4 Section 787.07(1) provides that “a person who knowingly and willfully transports into this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has The Defendants also contend that Ms. Mendoza specifically lacks standing because she “offers no concrete plans" to violate Section 10 in the future. Response at 10 (emphasis added). But Article III doesn't require a plaintiff to give us an exact date and time for her plans. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 n.2 (1992) (recognizing that "imminence' is concededly a somewhat elastic concept"). Ms. Mendoza avers that she regularly drives “individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities” into Florida. Mendoza Decl. ¶ 5. She also tells us that she knows a "middle-aged undocumented woman from the state of Yucatan, Mexico," who (when Ms. Mendoza wrote her Declaration) was receiving emergency dialysis in a hospital in Georgia. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. Although Ms. Mendoza was not sure “how long” this woman would be in Georgia, she was “100% willing to transport her to Florida . . to get the care she needs.” Id. ¶¶ 13–14. We think that's sufficiently imminent under the circumstances. See Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1340 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Immediacy is an elastic concept . Plaintiff Houston has traveled to Miami- .... Dade County on a regular basis in the past and expects to do so in the near future.... That is enough[;] Houston has frequently visited the area near the store in the past and will maintain the same frequency in the future." (cleaned up)). 9

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 10 of 40 entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry” commits a felony. . . . [T]he term "inspected" refers to any instance in which the federal government can decide whether to take action against a person. To “inspect" something is to "examine [it] officially," "to look carefully,” or to "make an examination." Inspect, Webster's Third International Dictionary 1170 . . . . "Inspected" thus denotes an opportunity to examine a person, not a final decision on the person's admissibility or legal status. Cf. Matter of G, 3 I. & N. Dec. 136, 138 (BIA 1948) (explaining that being “inspected”" means giving immigration officials an opportunity to question an alien) . Indeed, in federal law, an "inspection" is complete even if no decision is made as to admission. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(2) (discussing referring an alien for further proceedings "[u]pon inspection"); 19 U.S.C. § 1459(a), (d) (requiring individuals arriving in the United States to present themselves “for inspection"); see also Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 293 (BIA 2010) (defining “inspected and admitted” (emphasis added)). And federal law mandates inspections even if a person is encountered in the interior years after unlawful entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) (defining “applicant for admission” to include “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted"); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (requiring all applicants for admission to be inspected). In light of the above, most of Plaintiffs' concerns about § 787.07 are simply misplaced. Visa holders, DACA recipients, and aliens with pending applications for asylum or removal proceedings have all been “inspected” because they have notified the federal government of their presence, and the federal government can decide whether to take immediate action. To be sure, Plaintiffs contest this reading. But in a pre-enforcement challenge, it is enough that the statute “could be read” in the manner offered by the State Defendants. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 413–15[.] Id. at 3-5. The Defendants, in short, insist that the individuals our Plaintiffs want to transport into Florida have "been inspected under § 787.07[.]" Id. at 10; see also id. at 11 ("The person [Ms. Medrano Rios] wishes to transport across state lines is her daughter, who has a pending application with federal authorities for DACA benefits. Under § 787.07, her daughter has been ‘inspected,' and [Ms. Medrano Rios's] conduct would not violate the challenged statute."); ibid. (same as to Ms. Aragon's grandson, “who has a pending petition with federal authorities for a change in status”). On the Defendants' reading of Section 10 of SB 1718, therefore, the conduct of these three Plaintiffs doesn't violate the statute—a reality that deprives them of standing. 10

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 11 of 40 But the Defendants cannot use their own (narrow) construction of Section 10 to defeat the Plaintiffs' standing. In Morrisey, for instance, thirteen states “sued the Treasury Secretary and related officials to challenge a tax offset provision in the American Rescue Plan Act, a coronavirus stimulus package passed by Congress in 2021.” 59 F.4th at 1131–32. The Secretary argued that the “States lack standing to challenge the offset provision because the Secretary has not initiated a recoupment action against any of them.” Id. at 1135. According to the Secretary, “the offset provision does not proscribe the States' conduct because its text makes clear' that States may cut taxes so long as they ‘pay' for a tax cut without using Rescue Plan funds.” Id. at 1137. In the Eleventh Circuit's view, however, “[t]his argument—that the offset provision is clear-goes to the merits of the States' claims, not their standing to raise them.” Ibid. “When we assess standing,” the court explained, “we 'must be careful not to decide the questions on the merits for or against the plaintiff, and must therefore assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims."" Ibid. (quoting Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co., 813 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2016)). Applying this principle, the Circuit came to the same conclusion we reach here: Reviewing the text of the statute for standing purposes, we believe the States have shown that the offset provision arguably proscribes their conduct. The offset provision prohibits states from using federal funds to “either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the[ir] net tax revenue” resulting from a change in state law “during the covered period that reduces any tax . . . or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.” 42 U.S.C. § 802(c)(2)(A). Money is fungible. By prohibiting both direct and "indirect" offsets, the provision arguably proscribes a state from accepting the money if it enacts any tax cut. Id. at 1137-38 (emphases added). And that's consistent with the way courts in our Circuit have treated similar attempts by attorneys general to undermine a plaintiff's standing by offering narrowing interpretations of a statute. See, e.g., Shen v. Simpson, 2023 WL 5517253, at *1, 4 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023) (Winsor, J.) (emphasis added & cleaned up) (“The challenged law, codified at Florida Statutes § 692.201–204, . restricts land purchases by any ‘[f]oreign principal,' which it defines to include anyone who is domiciled in a 11

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 12 of 40 foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.'... The State [d]efendants argue that as a matter of Florida law, none [of the plaintiffs] is domiciled in China because each intends to reside in Florida indefinitely. The relevant issue, though, is whether [p]laintiffs' conduct is ‘arguably. . . proscribed by the new law And [plaintiffs] Shen, Wang, and Liu have shown that they are arguably domiciled in China and risk violating §§ 692.203 and 692.204. The new law, which does not independently define 'domicile,' 'sweeps broadly,' and arguably applies to [p]laintiffs.” (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 162 (2014))); cf. Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 940 (“We cannot accept the Attorney General's narrowing interpretation of [a state] statute. This Court's case law makes clear that we are not to give the Attorney General's interpretative views controlling weight."). As these cases make plain, the government cannot, in its response to a preliminary-injunction request, introduce a novel, narrowing construction of a statute and then demand that we make standing determinations based on that untested, non-binding interpretation. On the contrary, when standing is challenged, we must "assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.” Morrisey, 59 F.4th at 1137. Nor are the Defendants right to say that, “in a pre-enforcement challenge, it is enough that the statute 'could be read' in the manner offered by the State Defendants.” Response at 5 (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 413 (2012)). In Arizona, the Supreme Court invoked the constitutional-avoidance doctrine in resolving the merits of an injunction—not (as here) in assessing the petitioners' standing contentions. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 413–14 (“Some who support the challenge to § 2(B) argue that, in practice, state officers will be required to delay the release of some detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status . . . . But § 2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of § 2(B) instructs officers to make a ‘reasonable' attempt 12

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 13 of 40 to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful."). The standard the Court applied in Arizona is therefore inapposite here. In fact, as we've said, when it comes to standing, a plaintiff need only show that his “intended future conduct is arguably proscribed by the statute.” Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 162 (emphasis added & cleaned up); see also Picard v. Magliano, 42 F.4th 89, 98 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The Supreme Court's opinion in Susan B. Anthony List makes clear that courts are to consider whether the plaintiff's intended conduct is ‘arguably proscribed by the challenged statute, not whether the intended conduct is in fact proscribed."); Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. v. Strain, 65 F.4th 211, 217–18 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[The plaintiff] has standing if its intended action-continuing with its ‘plant-based' labels that use meat-esque words—is arguably proscribed. And here, it is: the Act arguably sweeps broadly enough to capture [the plaintiff's] conduct . . . . While [the plaintiff's] interpretation may not be the best interpretation, the test doesn't require that."). As we've suggested, the conduct of the three Plaintiffs we've discussed above is at least arguably proscribed by Section 10. The Defendants counter that these individual Plaintiffs lack standing because the people they "wish[ ] to transport across state lines" have “pending application[s] with federal authorities,” and “Visa holders, DACA recipients, and aliens with pending applications for asylum or removal proceedings have all been inspected" within the meaning of SB 1718. Response at 4, 11. Specifically, the Defendants suggest that individuals with pending immigration applications have "been inspected' because they have notified the federal government of their presence, and the federal government can decide whether to take immediate action.” Id. at 4. But it's not clear to us that the Defendants' interpretation of Section 10 is the correct one. As the Defendants concede, "[t]o ‘inspect' something is to ‘examine [it] officially,' 'to look carefully,' or to ‘make an examination.” Id. at 3 (quoting Inspect, WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1170 (1993)). And other dictionaries similarly define the verb “inspect” 13

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 14 of 40 to mean (1) “to view closely in critical appraisal"; and (2) “to examine officially.” Inspect, MERRIAM- WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspect (last visited May 21, 2024). “Absent a legislatively supplied definition," as the Defendants note, “we give [words their] 'plain and ordinary meaning' at the time of the statute's enactment, and we often look to contemporaneous dictionaries for evidence of that meaning.” Response at 4 (quoting Tsuji v. Fleet, 366 So. 3d 1020, 1028 (Fla. 2023)). That's a problem for the Defendants here because, as each of these definitions makes clear, the word “inspect” focuses on the actions of (and denotes some examination by) the inspector. He, after all, is the subject who must “examine officially," "look carefully,” “make an examination,” “view closely," etc. By any of these definitions, then, a person who submits an application to the USCIS without any evidence that some inspector actually “examined [it] officially,” “looked [at it] carefully,” or "viewed [it] closely" would appear not to have been “inspected.” To circumvent the plain meaning of the word “inspect,” our Defendants add words and phrases that don't appear in any of the available definitions. So, for instance, they say that the word ““[i]nspecteď . . . denotes an opportunity to examine a person, not a final decision on the person's admissibility or legal status." Response at 4 (emphasis added). But we've seen no definition of “inspect" that includes “an opportunity to examine”—and it's not our role to “add[] to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est).” A. SCALIA & B. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 93 (2012). Had the Florida legislature intended to exclude from the statute's coverage both people who had been inspected and those who had given the examiners an opportunity to inspect them, then the Defendants' arguments would have some merit. But it's our job to interpret the law as it was actually written-not the one the Defendants wish the legislature had promulgated. See Pinares v. United Techs. Corp., 973 F.3d 1254, 1262 (11th Cir. 2020) ("Where [the legislature] knows how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is controlling." (cleaned up)); Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enft, 543 U.S. 335, 341 (2005) (“We do not lightly assume 14

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 15 of 40 that [the legislature] has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply, and our reluctance is even greater when [the legislature] has shown elsewhere in the same statute that it knows how to make such a requirement manifest.”); cf. Savage Servs. Corp. v. United States, 25 F.4th 925, 935 (11th Cir. 2022) (refusing to read into the Oil Pollution Act a waiver of sovereign immunity because the legislature “knows how to waive sovereign immunity when it wants to"). Given that the plain meaning of the word “inspect” denotes careful or official examination, we cannot agree with the Defendants that simply giving USCIS the opportunity to review an application qualifies as an "inspection."5 Since we're here addressing the Defendants' claim that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing— and given the Plaintiffs' plausible reading of the law—we think these three Plaintiffs' conduct is arguably proscribed by Section 10 of SB 1718. We also think that the Farmworker Association has standing to challenge Section 10. “[A]n organization has standing to sue on its own behalf if the defendant's illegal acts impair its ability to engage in its projects by forcing the organization to divert resources to counteract those illegal acts." Fla. State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1165 (11th Cir. 2008). In Browning, the Eleventh Circuit held that the organizational plaintiff had standing because it made a “sufficient showing" that it "will have to divert personnel and time to educating volunteers and voters on compliance with Subsection 6 and . . . [t]hese resources would 5 The Plaintiffs separately note that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has interpreted the word “inspect” to require an in-person interaction with immigration officials. In Matter of Quilantan, for example, the BIA held that “an alien who physically presents herself for questioning and makes no knowing false claim to citizenship [has been] ‘inspected[.]”” 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 293 (BIA 2010) (emphasis added); see also In the Matter of G-, 3 I & N Dec. 136, 138 (BIA 1948) (“[W]e have always held that an alien who physically presents himself for questioning is ‘inspected' even though he volunteers no information and is asked no questions by the immigration authorities." (emphasis added)). While these passages aren't dispositive on the meaning of the word "inspection" as it appears in our statute, they do (like the dictionary definitions quoted above) cast doubt on the Defendants' claim that “aliens with pending applications" have been “inspected” simply “because they have notified the federal government of their presence[.]" Response at 4. 15

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 16 of 40 otherwise be spent on registration drives and election-day education and monitoring.” 522 F.3d at 1165–66. Similarly, in Common Cause, the Circuit found that the NAACP had standing because it "divert[ed] resources from its regular activities to educate and assist [affected individuals] in complying with the [challenged] statute[.]” Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). And, in Georgia Latino, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs had standing because they "diverted resources to educate their members, staff, and volunteers on the consequences of the [challenged] law." 691 F.3d at 1260; see also ibid. (“The enactment of H.B. 87 caused [the plaintiff] [Coalition of Latino Leaders] to receive an increased number of inquiries about the law, forcing it to divert volunteer time and resources to educating affected members of the community and fielding inquiries. As a result, CLL has cancelled citizenship classes to focus on these effects. According to CLL, ‘these problems will only get worse if the bill goes into effect.”” (cleaned up)). from As with the organizational plaintiffs in these cases, the Farmworker Association has shown, through a sworn Declaration from its General Coordinator, that it's had to divert resources away its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in their efforts to comply with Section 10 of SB 1718. See Declaration of Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli (the “Xiuhtecutli Decl.”) [ECF No. 30- 3] ¶ 11(c) (“Since the beginning of 2023, I had intended to increase our agroecology educational work through workshops. However, to do this we need to hire an agroecology coordinator.... Because our resources—both staff time and financial resources—have been diverted to responding to SB 1718, and Section 10 in particular, I have been unable to make this hire."); id. ¶ 34 (“FWAF has [ ] held member meetings regarding SB 1718, including Section 10, and sent out information and communications to its members and the immigrant community. These efforts are outside FWAF's regular activities and have consumed valuable resources. These efforts are () ongoing and continue to drain valuable resources from FWAF that would otherwise go to our core programs encouraging farmworkers' civic participation, advancing and educating the community on agroecology, building 16

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 17 of 40 farmworker coalitions, supporting worker's rights, improving working conditions, and safeguarding farmworkers' health and safety."); id. ¶ 38 (“I anticipate that the community impact of Section 10, including arrests and detentions, will continue to divert FWAF's resources from its core mission of strengthening farmworker communities through its different programs and normal organizing work." (emphasis added)). Given that the Farmworker Association "claim[s] injuries analogous to those present in Common Cause and Browning, we are satisfied that [it] meet[s] the minimum requirements of Article III." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1260.6 We're therefore satisfied that at least one Plaintiff has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 10. II. a. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits Due Process The Plaintiffs say that they're likely to succeed on the merits for two main reasons. First, they argue that "Section 10 [of SB 1718] is preempted" in several ways. Memorandum at 9. Second, they contend that "Section 10 violates the Due Process Clause because it is unconstitutionally vague.” Id. at 17. We'll begin our analysis with the Plaintiffs' due-process argument, which (as we've suggested) we "find to be [their] least persuasive argument[.]” Dec. 13, 2023, Hr‍g Tr. at 80:11–12. The Plaintiffs insist that Section 10 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "because it fails to provide ordinary citizens with notice of the conduct it prohibits and invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Memorandum at 17. In their view: Section 10 makes it a felony to transport into Florida a passenger who "has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry.” Ch. 2023-40, § 10, at 11-12, Laws of Fla. (amending § 787.07(1), (3)-(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022)). But Section 10 does not define what it means to be "inspected” “since” entry. The legislative history of Section 10 indicates that lawmakers sought to use the terms as they are understood in immigration law, but as explained above, immigration law does not contain that category or say what it means. Supra Part I.A.iii. And since people's 6 The Defendants advance several additional arguments about the Farmworker Association's alleged injury, see Response at 6-9, which apply with equal force to the irreparable-harm prong of the preliminary-injunction test. So, we'll address—and reject—those arguments in that section below. 17

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 18 of 40 immigration pathways can take hundreds of different forms, Section 10 leaves Floridians guessing as to which pathways show an “inspection” “since" entry and which ones do not. . . . [C]itizens of ordinary intelligence and law enforcement officers charged with enforcing this law are left with no hope of understanding what Section 10 prohibits and to whom it applies. This, alone, is unconstitutional. But the extremely high stakes of Section 10 which impose mandatory pre-trial criminal detention and felony culpability - make the law's vagueness even more constitutionally intolerable. - Id. at 17, 20. We disagree. Even accepting that the words "inspected” and “since" are subject to some interpretation, we cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their due-process claim because “[t]he mere fact that a statute requires interpretation does not necessarily render it void for vagueness.” Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99, 108 (1st Cir. 2010). And, while "the Constitution tolerates a lesser degree of vagueness in enactments with criminal rather than civil penalties, . . . absolute precision in drafting laws is not demanded.” High Ol Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir. 1982). Instead, “[u]nconstitutionally vague statutes are those which are not subject to reasonable interpretation" whatsoever. United States v. Vincent, 2022 WL 1401463, at *12 (N.D. Ga. May 3, 2022) (cleaned up); see also Indigo Room, Inc. v. City of Fort Myers, 710 F.3d 1294, 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[F]acial vagueness occurs when a statute is utterly devoid of a standard of conduct so that it simply has no core and cannot be validly applied to any conduct . . [I]f persons of reasonable intelligence can derive a core meaning from a statute, then the enactment may validly be applied to conduct within that meaning and the possibility of a valid application necessarily precludes facial invalidity.” (cleaned up)). As we've suggested, Section 10 has at least one reasonable interpretation—that “a person is inspected. if he physically presents himself for questioning.” Reply at 10 (cleaned up). On this interpretation, the Plaintiffs maintain that merely mailing (or emailing) an "application for an immigration benefit” to USCIS does not “mean[ ] a person has been inspected.” Id. at 10 & n.8. 18

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 19 of 40 Because we agree with the Plaintiffs that theirs is a reasonable interpretation of Section 10, we have trouble concluding that the statute is so vague that it fails to put reasonable people on notice of its meaning. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008) (holding that a law is "void for vagueness” if it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement”). In any event, without guidance from Florida's state courts (much less the Florida Supreme Court) on the meaning of Section 10, we hesitate to declare the statute vague—and, therefore, invalid. See Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 22–23 (1973) (“The judgment of federal courts as to the vagueness or not of a state statute must be made in the light of prior state constructions of the statute. For the purpose of determining whether a state statute is too vague and indefinite to constitute valid legislation we must take the statute as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it." (emphasis added & cleaned up)).7 More importantly, the Plaintiffs concede that their own conduct has been criminalized by Section 10. See Motion to Proceed Anonymously at 13 (“[The Plaintiffs] engage in and, in the future, intend to engage in activity that Florida has newly criminalized—that is, driving or traveling with their noncitizen family members or members of the communities they serve into Florida.... Under Section 10 of SB 1718, this activity exposes them to mandatory arrest and detention [and] prosecution on 7 The Plaintiffs add that “Florida legislators rejected numerous amendments that would have replaced ‘inspected' with clearer language," including language that would have replaced the phrase “has not been inspected by the Federal Government" with the phrase “has not contacted an official or office of the United States government in person, virtually or by telephone or email.” Memorandum at 18– 19. They say that the "statutory history and legislative history of Section 10 further highlight the incoherence of inspected' in this statute." Id. at 18. But this presumes that the Defendants' interpretation of the statute-as proscribing the interstate travel only of individuals who either have been inspected or have given the government an opportunity to inspect them—is the correct one. As we've indicated, we're quite skeptical of this construction. In any event, the fact that the Florida legislature could have “chosen clearer and more precise language equally capable of achieving [its objective] does not mean that the statute which it in fact drafted is unconstitutionally vague." United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 94 (1975) (cleaned up). 19

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 20 of 40 felony charges[.]”); Memorandum at 20 (“Individual Plaintiffs and FWAF members transport into Florida family members, co-workers, and others who entered unlawfully and who likely have not been 'inspected' for purposes of Section 10, in possible violation of the law Under the broad language of Section 10, Plaintiffs and FWAF members face arrest, prosecution, mandatory detention, and family separation."). Since the “statutory provision at issue clearly proscribes some conduct in which the challenger[s] engage[ ]"—at least according to the Plaintiffs—“the challenger[s] cannot complain of the statute's vagueness.” Case v. Ivey, 542 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1270 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (emphasis added) (citing Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982)). And that makes sense. If the Plaintiffs are confident that their family members and colleagues "likely have not been inspected' for purposes of Section 10,” Memorandum at 20 (emphasis added), they cannot simultaneously say that the statute is so vague as to be "incoherent,” id. at 19. And no one seems to be disputing the statute's application to the transportation of illegal immigrants who've never encountered the federal government. See Response at 1 (“The challenged statute prohibits knowingly transporting individuals across state lines . . . when the federal government has had no opportunity to inspect them following an illegal border crossing."); see also Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Educ., 746 F.3d 1135, 1140 (11th Cir. 2014) (reversing district court's grant of a preliminary injunction on vagueness grounds because “[s]ome of [the challengers'] conduct indisputably falls within the [a]ct's definition of political activity, and therefore the challengers cannot bring a facial challenge arguing the based on other applications"); J&B Social Club, No. 1, Inc. v. City of Mobile, 920 F. Supp. 1241, 1247 (S.D. Ala. 1996) (“As for the plaintiffs' claim of facial vagueness, the ordinance clearly is not vague in all of its applications. There is no question that it prohibits topless female dancing in a bar such as the one owned and operated by the plaintiffs." (emphasis added)). term vague Similarly, in our case, the Plaintiffs concede—in fact, they insist—that Section 10 prohibits at least some of their conduct. See, e.g., Reply at 7 (“Defendants bizarrely suggest that Section 10 only 20

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 21 of 40 But Section 10 ‘indirectly” ‘discourage[s]' undocumented immigrants ‘from entering the State.’ flatly prohibits their transport into the state, and criminalizes providing it."). We thus cannot agree that persons of reasonable intelligence would be unable to derive a “core meaning” from Section 10. See Motion to Proceed Anonymously at 1 (“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit challenging a law that will criminalize their families' and friends' travel into Florida[.]"). The Plaintiffs, in short, haven't shown that they're likely to succeed on the merits of their due-process claim. b. Preemption The Plaintiffs' preemption arguments are far stronger. As the Plaintiffs see it, “the Eleventh Circuit has squarely held, as a matter of both field and conflict preemption, that states cannot regulate the transport of immigrants, because federal law fully occupies that field and displaces even complementary state regulation. That clear holding is fatal to Section 10 and [is] sufficient to resolve this case." Memorandum at 9. In their view, because the “federal transport and harboring regime [] contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1324. . . . establish[es] ‘an overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field of ‘entry, movement, and residence of aliens in the United States,” id. at 9-10 (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264), “field preemption 'foreclose[s] any state regulation in the area," id. at 10 (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401). 222 There are three ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, “express ‘pre-emption occurs when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to pre-empt state law."" Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer Advos. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238, 1252 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 368 (1986)). Second, “conflict preemption occurs when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law."" Ibid. (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 476 U.S. at 368). Third, "[f]ield preemption occurs when a congressional legislative scheme is 'so pervasive as to make the reasonable inference that Congress left no room for the states to supplement it.” Browning, 522 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). But, as 21

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 22 of 40 the Supreme Court has explained, “the categories of preemption are not rigidly distinct,” and “field pre-emption may be understood as a species of conflict pre-emption[.]" Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 n.6 (2000). In other words, a state law that's field preempted necessarily “conflicts with Congress' intent (either express or plainly implied) to exclude state regulation.” English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 n.5 (1990). We'll therefore address the Plaintiffs' arguments on field and conflict preemption together. The Eleventh Circuit has been clear that, through the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), Congress “provided a full set of standards to govern the unlawful transport and movement of aliens.” Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264 (cleaned up). In our Circuit's view, therefore, “a state's attempt to intrude into this area is prohibited because Congress has adopted a calibrated framework within the INA to address this issue.” Ibid. As the Circuit has explained (reviewing a Georgia law that placed prohibitions on transporting undocumented immigrants): [S]ection 7 [of the Georgia law] creates three distinct state criminal violations: (1) transporting or moving an illegal alien, O.C.G.A. § 16–11–200(b); (2) concealing or harboring an illegal alien, id. § 16–11–201(b); and (3) inducing an illegal alien to enter the state of Georgia, id. § 16–11–202(b). Each of these offenses requires that the accused also be engaged in another criminal activity, and each further requires that the accused know of the illegal status of the subject. The State Officials argue that the district court erred in finding that section 7 is preempted by the criminal provisions of the INA, particularly 8 U.S.C. § 1324. We disagree. To determine the intent of Congress, we first look to the text of the relevant federal statutes. The INA provides a comprehensive framework to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)—(iv), it is a federal crime for any person to transport or move an unlawfully present alien within the United States; to conceal, harbor, or shield an unlawfully present alien from detection; or to encourage or induce an alien to "come to, enter, or reside in the United States.” Any person who conspires or aids in the commission of any of those criminal activities is also punishable. Id. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v). Section 1324(c) permits local law enforcement officers to arrest for these violations of federal law, but the federal courts maintain exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute for these crimes and interpret the boundaries of the federal statute. See id. § 1329. Subsection (d) of § 1324 further dictates evidentiary rules governing prosecution of one of its enumerated offenses, and subsection (e) goes so far as to mandate a community outreach program to "educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.” Rather than 22

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 23 of 40 authorizing states to prosecute for these crimes, Congress chose to allow state officials to arrest for § 1324 crimes, subject to federal prosecution in federal court. See id. SS 1324(c), 1329. In the absence of a savings clause permitting state regulation in the field, the inference from these enactments is that the role of the states is limited to arrest for violations of federal law. We are further convinced that section 7 presents an obstacle to the execution of the federal statutory scheme and challenges federal supremacy in the realm of immigration. By confining the prosecution of federal immigration crimes to federal court, Congress limited the power to pursue those cases to the appropriate United States Attorney. See 8 U.S.C. § 1329; Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2503 (explaining that if the state provision came into force, states would have “the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies”). Indeed, the State Officers have taken the position that an individual driving an unlawfully present alien to the supermarket could be prosecuted under section 7 and under the similar provisions of the INA … … …. This contention illustrates the State Officers' misunderstanding of the nature of federal immigration law and the reach of state authority in the realm of immigration-related law enforcement. Id. at 1263–66. In other words, outside of the states' congressionally bestowed authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, the states are "prohibited from enacting concurrent state legislation in this field of federal concern." United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1285 (11th Cir. 2012). This framework allows the federal government to retain “control over enforcement” of the INA and protects the “integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266. In Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit examined an Alabama statute that "create[d] state crimes for (1) concealing, harboring, or shielding an unlawfully present alien from detection, or attempting to do so; (2) encouraging or inducing an unlawfully present alien to 'come to or reside in' Alabama; (3) transporting, attempting to transport, or conspiring to transport an unlawfully present alien, including an alien's conspiracy to be transported; and (4) harboring an unlawfully present alien by entering into a rental agreement with that alien.” 691 F.3d at 1285. As we've said, citing Georgia Latino, the Alabama Court held that "Alabama is prohibited from enacting concurrent state legislation in this field of federal concern.” Id. at 1287. 23

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 24 of 40 And several other circuits have come out the same way. See Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1025-26 & n.17 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that an Arizona law that was "virtually indistinguishable” from “[t]he Georgia law in [Georgia Latino]” was field preempted because of the “comprehensive nature of § 1324, its place within the INA's larger structure governing the movement and harboring of aliens, and § 1324(c)'s explicit but limited provision for state involvement"); United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518, 530–31 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Sections 4(B) and (D) of the Act make it a state felony to ‘transport, move or attempt to transport' or 'conceal, harbor or shelter' a person 'with intent to further that person's unlawful entry into the United States' or to help that person avoid apprehension or detection . . . . We find the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning persuasive. Sections 4(B) and (D) of the Act are field preempted because the vast array of federal laws and regulations on this subject . is so ‘pervasive that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.' . Furthermore, the sections are conflict preempted because there is a federal interest so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” (cleaned up & quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 399)); Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297, 316 (3rd Cir. 2013) (“We agree with the Eleventh Circuit and other courts that have held that 'the federal government has clearly expressed more than a "peripheral concern" with the entry, movement, and residence of aliens within the United States and the breadth of these laws illustrates an overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field." (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264)). As the Defendants themselves recognize, the federal circuit courts have uniformly ruled that “prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens” fall into a “preempted field.” Response at 15 (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266). Still, the Defendants argue that Section 10 is neither field nor conflict preempted because it regulates a bit more than just the transportation of undocumented immigrants. That's because, in their view, the phrase "has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry 24

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 25 of 40 from another country" could refer to “alien[s] or citizen[s].” Ibid. In other words, according to the Defendants, "[Section] 787.07 does not regulate aliens, and it does not turn on a person's unlawful presence. Rather, whether alien or citizen, legally present or illegally present, individuals may not be transported into Florida unless the federal government has had the opportunity to ‘inspect them.” Id. at 15–16. The Plaintiffs, they add, “present no argument that Congress has exclusively occupied the field of 'transporting individuals who have not been inspected across state lines."" Id. at 16. We're not persuaded. For one thing, common sense dictates that the category of uninspected citizens as opposed to uninspected aliens-covers a relatively small (and statistically insignificant) subset of people. At our preliminary-injunction hearing, the Defendants agreed that this group would be composed of “U.S. citizens” coming back from, say, “the Bahamas with a bunch of people on [a] boat, or drugs.]" Dec. 13, 2023, Hr❜g Tr. at 97:16–19. This is undoubtedly a “miniscule category[.]" Reply at 6. For another, the Supreme Court has made clear that, “[w]here Congress occupies an entire field, . . . even complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. This is because "[f]ield preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards." Ibid. (emphasis added); see also KVUE, Inc. v. Moore, 709 F.2d 922, 931 (5th Cir. 1983) (“If preempted, a complementary or supplementary state regulation is as invalid as one directly conflicting with the federal scheme, for preemption forbids state regulation either to advance or to retard the federal purpose."). In this case, it'd be difficult to argue that Section 10 is not at least complementary to the federal immigration scheme: The parties agree that, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, states may not enact laws that regulate the “unlawful transport and movement of aliens," Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264, and Section 10-by its own terms-regulates the 8 See Response at 15 ("The first step in evaluating field preemption is to identify a field ... . Yet Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate the applicable field. Instead, they cite [Georgia Latino] ad nauseum . . . . In that case, however, the preempted field was 'prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens.""). 25

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 26 of 40 "knowing[] and willful[ ] transport[] into this state [of] an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry from another country,” Complaint ¶ 66 (quoting FLA. STAT. § 787.07(1)). It's thus preempted under Georgia Latino—even if the Defendants are right that, in addition to regulating uninspected aliens, the law also targets the small number of citizens who might fall within its ambit. As to the Defendants' claim that “[section] 787.07 does not regulate aliens,” Response at 15, the Plaintiffs are right that SB 1718, “[t]he bill that enacted Section 10[,] is titled 'An act relating to immigration.”” Reply at 7. The day he signed SB 1718, Governor DeSantis announced in a press release that "[t]he legislation I signed today gives Florida the most ambitious anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, fighting back against reckless federal government policies and ensuring the Florida taxpayers are not footing the bill for illegal immigration.” Press Release [ECF No. 30-13] at 9. Senator Blaise Ingoglia, who sponsored the bill, echoed that sentiment: “Our Southern Border has been dealing with a manmade crisis under the ineptness of President Biden, allowing more than 6.3 million illegal immigrants to flood our border . . . . Today, under the leadership of Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida made history signing into law the strongest state-led anti-illegal immigration bill ever brought forth." Ibid. And the Defendants themselves concede that “the statute may have some effect on the transportation of unauthorized aliens [.]" Response at 16. It therefore stretches credulity for the Defendants to suggest that Section 10 “does not directly regulate the transportation of illegal aliens" and "merely overlaps with federal law in some of its applications [.]" Id. at 17 (emphasis added). In any event, we've found no precedent for the Defendants' view that a party can circumvent field or conflict preemption by marginally expanding a regulation to cover a small, additional category of situations (or people). The Defendants, recall, say that, “[w]hile the statute may have some effect on the transportation of unauthorized aliens," it could also affect “citizen[s]" who have not been 26

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 27 of 40 "inspected" by the federal government. See id. at 15–16. But our courts have routinely rejected similar arguments. The state law in Fuentes-Espinoza v. People, for example, provided that a person commits a class 3 felony “if, for the purpose of assisting another person to enter, remain in, or travel through the United States or the state of Colorado in violation of immigration laws, he or she provides or agrees to provide transportation to that person in exchange for money or any other thing of value.” 408 P.3d 445, 447 (Colo. 2017). Like our law, this Colorado statute regulated a broader set of people than just undocumented immigrants—viz., anyone who violated the immigration laws. Still, the Supreme Court of Colorado held, citing Georgia Latino, that the law was preempted by the INA “under the doctrine of field preemption.” Id. at 452. The court reasoned that Congress has “evince[d] [an] intent to maintain a uniform, federally regulated framework for criminalizing and regulating the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, and this framework is so pervasive that it has left no room for the states to supplement it.” Id. at 452. Similarly, in Valle del Sol, the Arizona law at issue “swe[pt] more broadly than its federal counterpart by adding a new category of prohibited activities.” 732 F.3d at 1028. Specifically, the Arizona law "criminalize[d] encouraging or inducing an alien to come to or reside in Arizona,” while the federal harboring statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, “criminalizes encouraging or inducing an alien to come to or reside in the United States but ( ) does not penalize encouraging or inducing aliens, already in the United States, to travel from state to state or into any particular state.” Ibid. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit held that the state law was preempted because, “although it shares some similar goals with 8 U.S.C. § 1324, it ‘interfere[s] with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to' the harboring of unauthorized aliens.” Id. at 1026 (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 406); see also id. at 1027 (“[The Arizona law] conflicts with the federal scheme by divesting federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute these crimes.. As the Eleventh Circuit explained: [I]nterpretation of [state harboring] crimes by state courts and enforcement by state prosecutors unconstrained by federal law threaten the 27

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 28 of 40 uniform application of the INA."" (quoting Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266)). We agree. As these cases demonstrate, broadening a state law to complement (or to extend just beyond) the federal immigration-transport scheme doesn't shield that state law from field preemption. Like the laws in Georgia Latino, Alabama, Valle del Sol, South Carolina, Lozano, and Fuentes- Espinoza, Section 10 is both field and conflict preempted. Congress has established an "overwhelmingly dominant federal interest in the field” of unlawfully transporting aliens. Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264. And our Circuit has said unambiguously that only the federal government—through the INA- -can regulate the unlawful transportation of aliens within that field. See ibid. ("Like the federal registration scheme addressed in Arizona, Congress has provided a ‘full set of standards' to govern the unlawful transport and movement of aliens The INA comprehensively addresses criminal penalties for these actions undertaken within the borders of the United States, and a state's attempt to intrude into this area is prohibited because Congress has adopted a calibrated framework within the INA to address this issue." (quoting Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401)). Under Section 10, however, “an individual driving an unlawfully present alien to the supermarket could be prosecuted" by the Office of Statewide Prosecution and the state attorney-a scenario that, in the words of the Georgia Latino Court, "illustrate[d] the State Officers' misunderstanding of the nature of federal immigration law and the reach of state authority in the realm of immigration-related law enforcement.” Id. at 1265–66. And the Defendants' chief objection—that Section 10 might also apply to a tiny swathe of U.S. citizens who haven't been "inspected" after an illegal border crossing—cannot override the Eleventh Circuit's clearly stated view that "criminal acts of harboring and transporting unlawfully present aliens constitute an impermissible 'complement' to the INA that is inconsistent with Congress's objective of creating a comprehensive scheme governing the movement of aliens within the United States.” Id. at 1266; see also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66–67 (1941) (“[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in [a] field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation, . . . states 28

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 29 of 40 cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."). By making it a felony to transport into Florida someone who “has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry,” Section 10 extends beyond the state's authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law and, in so doing, intrudes into territory that's preempted. See Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264 (“In the absence of a savings clause permitting state regulation in the field, the inference from these enactments is that the role of the states is limited to arrest for violations of federal law [governing the transport or movement of an unlawfully present alien within the United States].”); Lozano, 724 F.3d at 316-17 (rejecting the argument that, “by authorizing state and local officials to arrest individuals guilty of harboring, see 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c), Congress specifically invited state and local governments into this field"). For all these reasons, we hold that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field-preemption claims.' III. Irreparable Injury For the second prong of the preliminary-injunction test, the party seeking the injunction must show that "irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues [.]" Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1231. The individual Plaintiffs contend that, if we don't enjoin Section 10, they will “suffer irreparable harm by being placed at immediate risk of arrest, detention, and prosecution[.]” Memorandum at 20. They add that some "[i]ndividual Plaintiffs and FWAF members transport into Florida family members, co- workers, and others who entered [the United States] unlawfully and who likely have not been 9 Because we've found that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field- preemption claims, we needn't reach the Plaintiffs' other preemption arguments―viz., that Section 10 is preempted because it conflicts with the “federal removal scheme,” Memorandum at 12, because it "impermissibly creates a novel immigration classification," id. at 13, or because it "disrupts the adjudication of immigration applications and removal proceedings,” id. at 16. 29

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 30 of 40 ‘inspected' for purposes of Section 10, in possible violation of the law.... Under the broad language of Section 10, Plaintiffs and FWAF members face arrest, prosecution, mandatory detention, and family The threat of pre-trial detention and subsequent felony prosecution is severe harm separation that cannot be undone." Ibid. Having reviewed the declarations of the three individual Plaintiffs who have established their standing to sue, we think that these three Plaintiffs have also shown that, absent an injunction, they would suffer irreparable injury. Ms. Mendoza, for instance, attests that she is willing to continue engaging in illegal conduct—thus risking actual or imminent criminal prosecution: Transporting individuals with various immigration statuses, including individuals who have never had any contact with immigration authorities, is a key part of my job[.] Currently, I spend about 30% of my time assisting people with transportation. In the past ten years, I have driven individuals into Florida dozens of times. These transportation services include taking people in my personal vehicle from Georgia to Florida for various reasons, including to see medical specialists in Jacksonville, Florida. I also personally transport [undocumented immigrants] to appointments with [USCIS] for fingerprinting and other services. Some immigrants in my nonprofit's area are directed to attend USCIS appointments in Jacksonville, even though they reside in Georgia . . . . One of the women in my community was released from the hospital a week or so ago after being admitted for renal failure. Her stomach had been getting bloated and she had no idea how close to death she was. She is a middle-aged undocumented woman from the state of Yucatan, Mexico . . . . I am 100% willing to transport her to Florida or anywhere else she needs to go to get the care she needs. SB 1718, however, has made me extremely anxious that my efforts to help this woman may result in significant jail time and prosecution for me. Mendoza Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 11, 14. Ms. Mendoza is likely to suffer irreparable injury because “[t]he threat of criminal prosecution . constitutes irreparable harm” for purposes of a preliminary injunction. ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Gold, J.); see also Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1269 (affirming the "district court's conclusion that [p]laintiffs have met their burden to enjoin enforcement of section 7" because the "[p]laintiffs are under the threat of state prosecution for crimes that conflict with 30

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 31 of 40 federal law, and . . . enforcement of a state law at odds with the federal immigration scheme is neither benign nor equitable”); Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1029 (holding that the individual plaintiff had “established a likelihood of irreparable harm” by “demonstrat[ing] a credible threat of prosecution under the statute”). So too here. Ms. Mendoza has established, through a sworn filing, that she faces a kind of Hobson's choice-between engaging in conduct she views as unconstitutionally proscribed (and facing a credible threat of prosecution under Section 10) and refraining from conduct she believes to be lawful. That's sufficient to establish irreparable harm under our precedents. As for Mmes. Aragon and Medrano Rios, their declarations suggest that they're now too afraid to travel in and out of Florida with their undocumented friends or family members—for fear of being arrested or prosecuted or of having their family members deported. These Plaintiffs allege that Section 10 has effectively prevented them from seeing their family members who live outside of Florida, leading to prolonged periods of separation. Ms. Aragon, for instance, says that: I fled to the United States from Nicaragua during the civil war in the 1980s, and I became a U.S. citizen more than twenty years ago. My daughter came to the United States many years later with my grandson, when he was less than a year old. To the best of my knowledge, my daughter and grandson crossed the border into the United States without ever being stopped or processed by immigration agents... ... I have a niece and other family members who live in Georgia and a very close family friend who lives in Washington, D.C.—she is like another daughter to me. I usually go to visit her and her family about every year. My grandson and I traveled to Georgia for a visit with family last October, and we were planning to go again this year . . . . Because we are afraid of everything [that] could happen as a result of the new law, my grandson and I had to give up our trip to Georgia this year. I do not know when we will be able to go back to visit our family. Now that the transport law is in place, I am afraid to travel with my grandson. If I am traveling with him, I could be stopped and arrested for breaking the new transport law if the police believe I am transporting him. That idea fills me with panic. It also makes me feel sad to be separated from my family and friends who live in other states. I am getting older, and time with my loved ones is important. I also do not want to travel by myself, because I don't want to leave my grandson alone now. I want my grandson to have a relationship with his other family members, and I feel terrible that his world is limited because of the transport law. Aragon Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7. And Ms. Medrano Rios similarly avers that: 31

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 32 of 40 I had planned to travel with my family to Texas, so that my children could visit their cousins and so that I could spend time with my brother and sister. Now, though, we can't take this trip. It is just too big a risk for my children and me. [My daughter] does not have an immigration case, and does not have any immigration status, even though she has applied for DACA. So, I am scared that she is not allowed to be brought back into Florida if we leave. And I don't know whether I can be driven back into Florida either, since I don't have any official status. I feel trapped not being able to take this trip, and I hated having to tell my family that it won't happen. It made me feel awful because finally after 6 years of being apart, my family was so close to finally being together again. Medrano Rios Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10–11. Mmes. Aragon and Medrano Rios have thus likewise demonstrated irreparable harm in the form of "indefinite family separation,” which many courts around the country have “recognized . . . as a form of irreparable injury.” Make the Road N.Y. v. Pompeo, 475 F. Supp. 3d 232, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see also Milligan v. Pompeo, 502 F. Supp. 3d 302, 321 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[S]eparation from family members is an important irreparable harm factor.” (cleaned up)); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); Palacios-Hernandez v. Meade, 2020 WL 13550207, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2020) (Smith, J.) (finding that the irreparable-injury factor weighed in favor of the plaintiffs "because of the prolonged separation of [the individual plaintiff] from his family”). Of course, if these Plaintiffs were to ignore Section 10 and visit their family members, they would then risk arrest and prosecution under the statute. The Farmworker Association will also suffer irreparable harm if Section 10 is not enjoined. Courts frequently find that organizational plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm where these plaintiffs show “ongoing harms to their organizational missions as a result of [a] statute.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1029; see also Ga. Coal. for People's Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1268 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (holding that the organizational plaintiffs “will also suffer irreparable injury distinct from the injuries of eligible voters" because their “organizational missions, including registration and mobilization efforts, will continue to be frustrated and organization resources will be diverted to assist with the 32

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 33 of 40 citizenship mismatch issue”); League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Cobb, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (Seitz, J.) (finding irreparable harm in part because the challenged statute forced the organizational plaintiffs to “halt[] or significantly scale[] back their voter registration operations”). Here, the Plaintiffs argue that Section 10 has “diverted . . . scarce resources" away from the Farmworker Association's “regular, core activities,” Memorandum at 22, and that it has impeded the Association's mission of providing transportation to migrant workers who “travel with the seasons to harvest crops, . . . back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year,” Complaint ¶ 17. In a Declaration, the General Coordinator of the Farmworker Association tells us that "FWAF has been inundated with questions and requests for assistance relating to travel between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama," forcing staff to "devote[] additional time outside of their regular activities and objectives to training existing volunteers and new volunteers on Section 10 and its impact on our members and the broader immigrant community.” Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶¶ 32–33. “Staff have been forced to spend time on calls rather than their normal work, which has resulted in delayed Medicaid applications, food stamps applications, and applications for U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm and Food Worker Relief.” Id. ¶ 35. Mr. Xiuhtecutli concludes, based on his experience, that the “impact of Section 10, including arrests and detentions, will continue to divert FWAF's resources from its core mission of strengthening farmworker communities through its different programs and normal organizing work.” Id. ¶ 38. Trying to parry, the Defendants say that the "Association has not explained how § 787.07 forc[es] the organization to divert resources to counteract' illegal acts." Response at 7 (quoting Browning, 522 F.3d at 1165). The Defendants also argue that the Association hasn't “show[n] ‘what harm [it] is seeking to counteract and how its diversion of resources is aimed at preventing that harm.” Id. at 8 (quoting Cousins v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 2023 WL 5836463, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023) (Berger, J.)). But the Association has described that harm. For example, Mr. Xiuhtecutli declared that: 33

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 34 of 40 Approximately 600 families that include dues-paying FWAF members left Florida at the end of the harvest season in May 2023. Most of these members are from the Immokalee and Fellsmere areas, who travel back and forth between Florida and northern states based on the growing season. Typically, these members would return in September 2023 for the squash, zucchini, chili pepper, tomatoes, lettuce, and other vegetable planting season. However, based on .. our organizers' conversations with members, I anticipate that approximately 100 member families will not return if SB 1718 remains in effect, because they do not want to risk a felony charge. These same member families are unlikely to return for the vegetable harvesting seasons in the Florida winter and spring. FWAF will lose many of these members, the dues from those members, and the critical in-kind donations from those members that help run FWAF's programs. Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 39. He also explains that the Association specifically diverted resources to prevent these harms, noting that staff has devoted additional time-outside of their regular activities—to provide "information and communications to [the Association's] members," who have “inundated [the Association] with questions and requests for assistance relating to travel between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama." Id. ¶¶ 32, 34; see also id. ¶ 34 ("Since SB 1718 passed, and even before Section 10 went into effect, FWAF began providing Know Your Rights presentations to specifically prepare for and educate our members on the impacts of SB 1718, including Section 10. FWAF has conducted twelve Know Your Rights presentations thus far.”). Finally, on the Defendants' claim that the Association hasn't been forced to divert its resources, see Response at 7, we think this argument parses the matter a bit too finely. As the Eleventh Circuit held in Georgia Latino, “an organizational plaintiff suffer[s] cognizable injury when it [is] forced to divert resources from its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in complying with the challenged statute.” 691 F.3d at 1260 (cleaned up). That's precisely what Mr. Xiuhtecutli alleges in his Declaration. See, e.g., Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 35 (“Staff have been forced to spend time on calls rather than their normal work, which has resulted in delayed Medicaid applications, food stamps applications, and applications for U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm and Food Worker Relief." (emphasis added)); id. ¶ 11.b. (“Until 2021, FWAF had three community gardens: one in Florida City (near our Homestead office), one in Pierson, and one in Apopka. In 2021, Florida City sold the land for our garden, forcing us to move many of the plantings to our smaller 34

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 35 of 40 office gardens. This year, because we were forced to respond to the crisis brought on by SB 1718, and in particular concerns from our members about Section 10, we have struggled to maintain our garden in Pierson." (emphasis added)). The Defendants also note that SB 1718 contains provisions outside of Section 10, and they contend that "many of the Association's allegations tie its diversion to the entirety of SB 1718, not merely" Section 10. Response at 8. They take issue, for example, with Mr. Xiuhtecutli's attestation that the Association has begun providing “Know Your Rights presentations... on the impacts of SB 1718, including [Section 10].” Ibid. (quoting Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 34). They also point to Mr. Xiuhtecutli's claims that the Association has “held member meetings regarding SB 1718, including Section 10,” and that “staff received more calls each day since SB 1718 passed than we received prior to its passage." Ibid. (quoting Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 35). We're not so troubled by these passages. There's no question that Mr. Xiuhtecutli's Declaration is focused specifically on the impact of Section 10. See, e.g., Xiuhtecutli Decl. ¶ 30 ("Not only are individual FWAF members harmed by Section 10, but FWAF as an organization has and will continue to suffer harm because of Section 10.”); id. ¶ 36 ("The increase in FWAF staff's time and focus on Section 10 is driven by the needs of FWAF's membership."); id. ¶ 37 ("FWAF lacks the funds to increase its staffing to educate the community on Section 10 and its consequences. FWAF must now divert even more resources to fundraising in an attempt to address this deficit.”). The vast majority of the references by Xiuhtecutli (a non-lawyer) to SB 1718 as a whole either use the term as a metonym for Section 10, see id. ¶ 39 (“I anticipate that approximately 100 member families will not return if SB 1718 remains in effect, because they do not want to risk a felony charge.”), or expressly cabin the language to “Section 10 in particular,” id. ¶ 11(c). We therefore find that the Farmworker Association will suffer irreparable harm as an organization if Section 10 of SB 1718 is not enjoined. 55 35

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 36 of 40 Outside of their standing arguments, the Defendants advance just one argument for their position that the Plaintiffs aren't suffering irreparable injury: The Plaintiffs (the Defendants say) moved too slowly to “properly serve the pending motion on the State Defendants”—and this delay (the Defendants contend) suggests that “they are not seriously concerned about irreparable harm.” Response at 18-19. We disagree. Governor DeSantis signed SB 1718 into law on May 10, 2023; it went into effect in early July; and the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 17, 2023. See generally Complaint. All the Defendants were served by August 22, 2023. See generally Docket. While it's true that a plaintiff concerned about irreparable harm “would and should act swiftly to protect itself,” Car Body Lab Inc. v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 2021 WL 2652774, at *10 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2021) (Goodman, Mag. J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3404040 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2021) (Moreno, J.), we don't think a week or two between a statute's enactment and the filing of the lawsuit challenging it constitutes unreasonable delay. And, given that the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24, 2023—just two days after the last Defendant was served—we don't think they took too long to serve their motion either. IV. Equitable Factors The final two factors of the preliminary-injunction test are whether the “threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant" and whether the “entry of th[at] relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1225–26. These two factors “merge when, as here, the government is the opposing party.” Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The Defendants imply that an injunction against Section 10 will harm Florida's “interest in ensuring individuals in its territory are inspected[.]" Response at 19. Such an injunction (the Defendants fear) would prevent the state from identifying “drug traffickers [who] are successfully smuggling mass quantities of deadly illicit fentanyl past federal agents, wreaking havoc on Florida's citizens." Ibid. (cleaned up). We're unmoved. 36

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 37 of 40 For one thing, the Defendants never actually argue that their interest in rooting out drug traffickers outweighs the threatened injury to the Plaintiffs. They simply say that "Florida's interest in ensuring individuals in its territory are inspected is certainly legitimate.” Ibid. But even a “legitimate” governmental interest can be outweighed by the harm the challenged statute imposes on the Plaintiffs and the public. See, e.g., Ron Grp., LLC v. Azar, 2021 WL 5576616, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 2021) (holding that the "balance of harms weigh[ed] in favor of granting the preliminary injunction,” even though “the state and the public certainly have an interest” in recouping a portion of the plaintiff's Medicaid claims); Deferio v. City of Syracuse, 193 F. Supp. 3d 119, 131 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that the “hardship faced by [p]laintiff”—“the loss of his right to demonstrate in a traditional public forum”- outweighed the city's interest in “maintaining peace and order in the community, preventing violence, and avoiding congestion," which are "[u]ndoubtedly . . . legitimate governmental interests" (cleaned up)). For another, we've already determined that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim, and a state “has ‘no legitimate interest' in enforcing an unconstitutional law.” Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor, 94 F.4th 1272, 1283 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2006)); see also Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Transp., 715 F.3d 1268, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he State's alleged harm is all the more ephemeral because the public has no interest in the enforcement of what is very likely an unconstitutional statute."); Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1269 (“[E]nforcement of a state law at odds with the federal immigration scheme is neither benign nor equitable.”); Alabama, 691 F.3d at 1301 (“[W]e discern no harm from the state's nonenforcement of invalid legislation.”). In other words, if a state law is preempted, then the state can suffer no harm from a court order that enjoins that law. Indeed, “[t]he United States suffers injury when its valid laws in a domain of federal authority are undermined by impermissible state regulations.” Ibid. In this case, any harm the state may suffer from an injunction is 37

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 38 of 40 outweighed by the harm Section 10 poses both to the Plaintiffs and to the United States, which has the ultimate interest in protecting federal supremacy in the realm of immigration. The Defendants proffer one final argument on the equities: that the “Plaintiffs come to this Court with unclean hands.” Response at 19. The Supreme Court has long adhered to the age-old maxim that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). The Defendants' theory is that the Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their goal in requesting this preliminary injunction is to facilitate “illegal conduct such as driving without a license, working without authorization, and avoiding detection for criminal illegal entry." Response at 19. But this argument—alluring at first glance—fails on closer inspection because the Defendants haven't met the elements of the unclean-hands defense. “To assert an unclean hands defense,” after all, “a defendant must show that (1) the plaintiff's wrongdoing is directly related to the claim, and (2) the defendant was personally injured by the wrongdoing.” Bailey v. TitleMax of Ga., Inc., 776 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 2015). The party seeking equitable relief must also have committed an “unconscionable act.” Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245 (1933). The Defendants never argue that all the Plaintiffs—some of whom are U.S. citizens—are engaged in wrongdoing. Ms. Mendoza, for instance, is a “U.S. citizen” who “ha[s] been a resident of Georgia for nearly forty years." Mendoza Decl. ¶ 2. The Defendants never suggest that Ms. Mendoza is driving without a license, working without authorization, or avoiding detection for criminal illegal entry. See generally Response. Nor do the Defendants allege that they were “personally injured” by any of the Plaintiffs' wrongdoing—or that the Plaintiffs' wrongful conduct (e.g., driving without a license or working without authorization) comes anywhere near constituting an “unconscionable act.” Where the party invoking the unclean-hands doctrine fails to establish a “close nexus” between "the 'unconscionable act' and the pending issue,” the court “cannot apply unclean hands against [the] 38

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 39 of 40 [p]laintiffs." Stewart v. Hooters of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 1752843, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007) (Kovachevich, J.). * In a Notice of Supplemental Authority [ECF No. 97], the Plaintiffs "inform the Court of a decision. . . by the Fifth Circuit, holding that a Texas immigration law is likely preempted.” Id. at 1. In United States v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit held that SB 4—a Texas statute prohibiting noncitizens from illegally entering or reentering the state—was “likely field preempted,” affirming the district court's conclusion that “the federal government has both a dominant interest and a pervasive regulatory framework to control immigration into the United States, precluding state regulation in the area.” 97 F.4th 268, 278, 288 (5th Cir. 2024). That holding, of course, is consistent with our Circuit's decision in Georgia Latino—and, by extension, with our decision today. In dissent, however, Judge Oldham cautioned that "[t]he Supreme Court has never extended field preemption to any part of the immigration laws beyond alien registration." Id. at 298 (Oldham, J., dissenting). Judge Oldham may well be right: The Supreme Court, after all, seems never to have squarely held that the INA's framework for regulating the transportation, concealment, or harboring of aliens preempts the entire field. And we're sympathetic to Judge Oldham's admonition against “extend[ing] field preemption beyond the INA's alien-registration provisions." Ibid. Without express guidance from the Supreme Court, however, we remain bound by the pronouncements of our Circuit, which has held that the “unlawful transport and movement of aliens" is a fully preempted field. Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1264; see also United States v. Files, 63 F.4th 920, 923 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Under our [Circuit's] prior-panel-precedent rule, an earlier panel's holding is controlling 'unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” (quoting United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008))); NLRB v. Datapoint Corp., 642 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981) (“Without a clearly 39

Case 1:23-cv-22655-RKA Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 40 of 40 contrary opinion of the Supreme Court or of this court sitting en banc, we cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel of this court[.]" (emphasis added)). In our Circuit's view, “[g]iven the federal primacy in the field of enforcing prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, the prospect of fifty individual attempts to regulate immigration-related matters cautions against permitting states to intrude into this area of dominant federal concern." Ga. Latino, 691 F.3d at 1266. Bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent, we hold that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Section 10 of SB 1718 is preempted by federal law-and that they have satisfied each of the other elements of their preliminary-injunction request. CONCLUSION We therefore ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED. 2. FLA. STAT. § 787.07 is PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED. 3. The Defendants must take no steps to enforce FLA. STAT. § 787.07 until otherwise ordered. This preliminary injunction binds the Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2024. CC: counsel of record 40 ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE