CAIR-Florida Suspends Operations in 2026: Florida’s Terrorist Designation Takes Effect

CAIR-Florida Suspends Operations in 2026: Florida’s Terrorist Designation Takes Effect After a Federal Judge Refuses to Block It

Federal Judge Allen Winsor of the Northern District of Florida denied most of CAIR’s motion for a preliminary injunction but upheld access to legal services. Florida maintains its state designations; the organizations have appealed the ruling and reject the state’s allegations.

CAIR-Florida, Inc., which operates solely in Florida, suspended its operations in the state following the November 5, 2026, effective date of its designation as a “domestic terrorist organization” by the governor and the Cabinet. A notice at its office states this, and WUSF photographed it.

On the 4th, Federal Judge Allen Winsor of the Northern District of Florida had denied most of the preliminary injunction sought by CAIR-Florida and CAIR-Foundation, except for one point: prosecutors may not charge them, their employees, or third parties with the crime of material support for legal services provided to them (Order ECF 65, Case No. 4:26-cv-521, p. 36). This is a decision on a preliminary injunction, not on the merits of the case.

NMD screenshot of page 36 of ECF No. 65, dated November 4, 2026, in CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521: the ruling, “GRANTED in part” and “otherwise DENIED.”

Background: The Executive Order and Walker’s First Ruling (December 2025 to March 2026)

Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, signed Executive Order 25-244 on December 8, 2025, which was challenged in CAIR I. Photo: official portrait, flgov.com.

Executive Order 25-244, titled “Protecting Floridians from Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations, ” is the action taken by Governor Ron DeSantis that started it all in Florida, and CAIR challenged it in its first lawsuit, CAIR I (Executive Order 25-244, the governor’s official website).

He signed it on December 8, 2025: “this 8th day of December, 2025” (p. 4).

ECF 43 states: “On December 8, 2025, Governor DeSantis signed Executive Order 25-244” (ECF 43, p. 2).

Walker ruled on an action taken by the governor. On March 4, 2026, he granted the injunction against Executive Order 25-244 and wrote that the First Amendment prevents the governor from “continuing the troubling trend of using an executive office to make a political statement at the expense of others’ constitutional rights” (ECF 43, p. 1).

District Judge Mark E. Walker signed Order ECF 43 on March 4, 2026. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Public domain.

Page 1 of Order ECF 43 dated March 4, 2026, CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:25-cv-516, signed by Mark E. Walker: “The First Amendment bars the Governor from continuing the troubling trend of using an executive office to make a political statement at the expense of others’ constitutional rights.”

CAIR-Foundation and CAIR-Florida have filed three lawsuits against Florida in the Northern District of Florida. It is important not to confuse them.

CAIR I,

CAIR-FOUNDATION INC v. DESANTIS (4:26-cv-00521)

District Court, Northern District of Florida

• Last Updated: Nov. 9, 2026, 6:42 a.m.
• Assigned To: Allen Cothrel Winsor
• Referred To: Martin A. Fitzpatrick
• Citation: CAIR-FOUNDATION INC v. DESANTIS, 4:26-cv-00521, (N.D. Fla.)
• Date Filed: Oct. 1, 2026
• Date of Last Known Filing: Nov. 4, 2026
• Case: Civil Rights Act of 1983, Section 42:1983
• Nature of Lawsuit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
• Jury Requirement: None
• Jurisdiction Type: Federal Question

What Is Punishable Under Florida Law?

Following Walker’s ruling, the Florida Legislature passed Bills HB 1471 and HB 1473, “which created a DTO designation process” (ECF 65, p. 2). The final vote took place on March 12, 2026, in the House of Representatives. The governor signed them on April 7, 2026, as Chapters 2026-28 and 2026-29, and they took effect on July 1 (HB 1471 bill summary and HB 1473 bill summary, Florida Senate). HB 1471 (“Systems of Law and Terrorist Organizations”) is the main bill and also contains provisions regarding schools and universities that are not summarized here; HB 1473 (“Pub. Rec./Terrorist Organizations”) is a related public records exemption.

HB 1471

HB 1473

The FDLE subsequently issued Emergency Rule 11RER26-8, “which implements this legislation” (ECF 65, p. 3); it was filed and took effect on September 11, 2026,

and the Florida Administrative Register published it on September 14 (Vol. 52, No. 178, pp. 3967 and 3968). Under the law, the designation became a procedural matter: it is proposed by the Chief of Homeland Security and approved by the governor and the Cabinet.

This section summarizes only the text of the Florida Statutes, 2026 edition, as published by Online Sunshine, the official website of the Florida Legislature (leg.state.fl.us): 943.03102, 775.30, 775.33, and 775.34,

943.03102

775.30

775.33

775.34

and those cited in the ruling as part of the same system (ECF 65, p. 3): 617.1420, 823.05, and 874.03 through 874.12;

617.1420

823.05

Chapter 874, sections 874.01 through 874.12.

This is not legal advice: Anyone who needs to know how this affects them should consult an attorney.

Florida Statute 775.33, 2026 Edition, on Online Sunshine: the definition of “material support or resources” (“any property, tangible or intangible, or service … The term does not include medicine or religious materials”) and the first-degree felony of “knowingly providing material support or resources” to a domestic terrorist organization.

The Designation: Notice, Approval, and Publication (September and October 2026)

Statutory dates, including their calculation. The appointment was approved by the governor and the Cabinet on September 29, 2026, and published in the Florida Administrative Record on October 6 (ECF 65, p. 3).

The FDLE’s notice in the Administrative Record states: “The Governor and Cabinet approved the designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a domestic terrorist organization pursuant to Section 943.03102, F.S. This designation is effective 30 days after the publication of this notice” (Florida Administrative Record, vol. 52, no. 194, Oct. 6, 2026, p. 4406). The notice names “Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)” and does not mention CAIR-Florida separately.

The Winsor order, on the other hand, states that the governor and the Cabinet “designated Plaintiffs CAIR-Foundation, Inc., and CAIR-Florida, Inc., as DTOs” (ECF 65, p. 1).

In the same issue, using the same format, the designations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Antifa were published (pp. 4405 and 4406).

NMD screenshot of page 4406 of the Florida Administrative Record, vol. 52, no. 194, October 6, 2026: the FDLE notice states, “The Governor and Cabinet approved the designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a domestic terrorist organization.”

The order cites Section 943.03102(2)(f), which provides 30 days following publication to challenge the appointment in the Second Judicial Circuit, and Rule 11RER26-8(3), pursuant to which the appointment is not effective during that period (ECF 65, pp. 19–20; Florida Statutes of 2026, enacted by Acts HB 1471 and HB 1473 of 2026, as cited in the order).

Calculation: October 6 plus 30 days equals November 5, 2026, the date specified in the order: “The designations take effect on November 5, 2026” (p. 1). No subsequent order was found that changes that date.

October 2026: The New Lawsuit and the Change of Judge

On October 1, 2026, Judge Walker dismissed CAIR’s second lawsuit—which challenged HB 1471—for lack of standing (CAIR II, ECF 69).

That same day, CAIR-Foundation and CAIR-Florida filed the third lawsuit, CAIR III, challenging the already approved designation (case no. 4:26-cv-521).

On October 6, the day the FDLE published the designation in the Administrative Record (p. 4406), Walker denied the request for a temporary restraining order and deferred the remainder of the motion until after hearing from the defendants: “Insofar as” the designations “do not take effect until November 5, 2026,” he wrote, he was not convinced that a decision needed to be made before then (ECF 28).

Page 6 of Order ECF 69 dated October 1, 2026, CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-315, signed by Mark E. Walker: “This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction insofar as the Plaintiffs did not have standing at the time the case was filed on July 1, 2026” and “The Plaintiffs may, of course, file a new lawsuit”

Page 1 of Order ECF 28 dated October 6, 2026, CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521: The temporary restraining order is denied “insofar as” the designations “do not take effect until November 5, 2026.”

The case was reassigned midway through the proceedings. Walker presided over CAIR III until October 15. On that day, he recused himself because the Eleventh Circuit had scheduled oral arguments in the first lawsuit regarding the governor’s motion to recuse him. He wrote that the motion struck him as “meritless and nothing but rank judge shopping,” but that it made no sense to continue “if the Eleventh Circuit ultimately disagrees” (ECF 56, pp. 1–2). The case was assigned to Judge Robert L. Hinkle for one day and was transferred to Winsor on October 16 (case docket).

Page 2 of the ECF 56 recusal order dated October 15, 2026, CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521, signed by Mark E. Walker: “The arguments in favor of disqualification are meritless and nothing but blatant judge shopping. … Accordingly, I hereby disqualify myself.”

The November 4 Decision and Its Effects

The 36-page ECF 65 order, signed by Winsor, the chief district judge, grants the motion “in part.” It orders state prosecutors and the attorney general to refrain from applying Florida Statute 775.33(3) (material support) against the plaintiffs, their employees, or third parties providing legal services to them “based on the provision of legal services to Plaintiffs,” and adds: “The motion is otherwise DENIED.” The order takes effect upon posting a bond of $1,000 (ECF 65, p. 36).

Allen C. Winsor, Chief Judge of the Northern District of Florida, signed Order ECF 65 on November 4, 2026.

On the merits, the judge writes on page 6: “The issue at this stage is not whether the plaintiffs are, in fact, terrorist organizations. The parties present vastly different views on this point.” He acknowledges that the scheme is “novel—and perhaps unprecedented,” but adds that the Constitution does not prohibit a law simply because it is novel. Regarding the entity: “Because one Plaintiff (CAIR Florida, Inc.) operates exclusively in Florida, it says it will shut down entirely … based on undisputed statements in the Plaintiffs’ declarations, I accept these representations as true” (ECF 65, pp. 6–7).

The court found it probable that the plaintiffs would prevail on only one point: that the restriction on “expert advice” applied to their receipt of legal services violates the First Amendment. “As to all other claims, they have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits” (ECF 65, pp. 34–35).

Regarding due process, the judge concluded that the available procedure was sufficient: there was notice, written objections, and a 30-day deadline to appeal to a state court, which the plaintiffs did not use (ECF 65, pp. 3 and 19–20). The plaintiffs contend otherwise and have announced that they will appeal, according to the ACLU of Florida.

The legal services exception is created by the court order, not the statute. Winsor orders state prosecutors and the attorney general to refrain from applying 775.33(3) against the plaintiffs, their employees, or third parties providing them with legal services “based on the provision of legal services to Plaintiffs” (ECF 65, p. 36). The judge found it probable that the restriction on “expert advice” applied to the receipt of legal services violates the First Amendment, and noted that the law criminalizes any third party, including an attorney, from providing “expert advice” “of any kind” to the plaintiffs (pp. 33–35).

The ACLU of Florida, which represents the plaintiffs along with the national ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the law firm Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, announced on November 5 that CAIR and CAIR-Florida “will appeal” the ruling. The statement adds a detail not included in the court order: “On Wednesday night, the defendants also agreed that they would not prosecute (a) employees, board members, and third parties for their good-faith and reasonable involvement in the groups’ two legal challenges to Florida officials’ designations, or (b) good-faith and reasonable actions undertaken to comply with state and federal legal obligations” (ACLU of Florida, Nov. 5, 2026).

That provision appears only in a statement from one of the parties: NMD has not located the document in the case file. The same statement acknowledges that the order “does not resolve the case, address all claims in it, or make factual findings about Florida officials’ allegations.” Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida, said that the order “at least recognizes that an organization cannot be prosecuted for participating in its own legal defense.”

Why the outcome differs from that of March. On March 4, 2026, Judge Mark Walker blocked the governor’s Executive Order 25-244 due to a probable violation of the First Amendment, and only with respect to the CAIR Foundation: “It does not even enjoin Defendant’s actions as to the other Plaintiff in this case, CAIR-FL” (ECF 43, p. 27).

Winsor ruled on another measure: according to the order, the Legislature subsequently passed HB 1471 and HB 1473, which established an appointment process, and the plaintiffs sought the preliminary injunction based on only four grounds (due process, freedom of association, prior restraint, and discrimination based on viewpoint or content), not on their claim of retaliation (ECF 65, pp. 2 and 5). Further details are provided below.

Why Walker and Winsor Decided Differently

Winsor decided on a legal and administrative framework. According to the order, following Walker’s decision, the Legislature passed HB 1471 and HB 1473, and the FDLE issued emergency rule 11RER26-8. The plaintiffs received the notice of intent to designate on September 18, filed written objections, the Governor and the Cabinet approved the designations on September 29, and the FDLE published them on October 6; the plaintiffs did not pursue the state remedy (ECF 65, pp. 2–3).

Furthermore, his claim that the designations stem from animosity toward his faith was not included in the motion for a preliminary injunction (p. 5).

The ruling does not compare its reasoning with Walker’s. What it documents is a difference in legal instrument and in what was sought: the decision itself calls the scheme “novel—and perhaps unprecedented” (p. 6) and begins the narrative by stating that “This is Florida’s second effort to designate Plaintiffs as terrorist organizations” (p. 2).

November 5: Suspension of operations in Florida

Reporter Stephany Matat of the USA TODAY network (Tallahassee Democrat), described a neon orange sign in the window of the organization’s main office in Temple Terrace in an article updated on November 4, 2026 (Yahoo/Tallahassee Democrat).

WUSF, in a report by Gabriella Paul published on November 6, identifies the offices as being located on North 56th St. in Tampa and published two photos of its own: the facade with the “CAIR-FL” sign and a notice posted inside a window (WUSF, Central Florida Public Media).

WLRN reported on November 9 that Wilfredo Ruiz, the organization’s “former communications director,” said that he and “about a dozen of his other coworkers were let go” when CAIR ceased operations in Florida (WLRN, Sofia Zarran, Nov. 9).

NMD opened the photo of the window, which is legible. On a piece of orange paper, behind the glass and beneath another sign listing office hours, it reads: “We have suspended our operations in Florida because of Governor DeSantis and other state officials’ baseless and unconstitutional enforcement of the state’s unprecedented new ‘domestic terrorist organization’ laws against us.” The notice continues with a reference to the ACLU, the SPLC, and “a federal lawsuit challenging this designation on First Amendment and due process grounds,” and provides a link to www.aclu.org/cases. The photo does not show the date it was posted. The text transcribed by WUSF in its article is slightly different: it says “Ron” and does not include “unprecedented.”

The core information matches across all three media outlets and in the photo: the organization claims to have suspended its operations in Florida due to the enforcement of state laws. The details differ: whether “Ron” appears, whether the situation is “unprecedented,” whether the notice is on the door or the window, and whether the date is the 4th or the 5th. That is why NMD does not provide a single, definitive text: the WUSF photo confirms one of the versions, and NMD has not accessed the photos from the Tallahassee Democrat or the Washington Times.

In addition to the sign, CAIR posted a notice on its website for Florida residents, according to an article by Juan Carlos Chavez published on Yahoo on November 6: “As a precaution and to protect our supporters in Florida, CAIR is not accepting donations from, or providing support to, anyone who lives in or is located in Florida, or any business, foundation, or other organization based in Florida” (Yahoo, Nov. 6, 2026).

The university newspaper *The Independent Florida Alligator* reported that the link to CAIR’s website from Florida leads to that statement (*Alligator*, Nov. 5).

Hiba Rahim, executive director of CAIR-Florida, said in a written statement reported by the ACLU of Florida and the Florida Phoenix:

“CAIR-Florida categorically rejects Florida officials’ baseless designation of us. Nevertheless, we are heartbroken that we have no choice but to close our doors to protect our staff and people of all faiths who support our work” (ACLU of Florida, Nov. 5, 2026).

The media use different terms to describe the closure: “indefinitely” (Tallahassee Democrat, Washington Times, WUSF), “temporarily” (Yahoo headline from Nov. 6), and “suspended” (the announcement). The RAIR Foundation website, a media outlet that supports the designation, wrote that CAIR-Florida closed “officially and permanently” (RAIR, Nov. 5). No CAIR statement cited by the press mentions “permanent.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier posted on X on November 5, 2026: “CAIR has officially suspended operations in Florida.” (Uthmeier’s post on X, Nov. 5). It is the same word, “suspended,” used in the notice from the CAIR-Florida office; the phrase comes from the attorney general, whose office is representing the state in the lawsuit, and is quoted as his exact words.

The Appeal and What’s Next

The appeal was filed on November 5: “Plaintiffs CAIR-Foundation, Inc. and CAIR Florida, Inc. appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order, entered on November 4, 2026, ECF No. 65, denying in part Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction” (Notice of Appeal, ECF 66, p. 1).

Page 1 of the notice of appeal ECF 66 dated November 5, 2026, CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521, copy published by the ACLU, signed by Ashley Gorski: “appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order, entered on November 4, 2026, ECF No. 65”

The following day, the $1,000 bond on which the legal services’ protection depended was recorded: a letter from Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida, enclosing the check “in accordance with Chief Judge Winsor’s preliminary injunction order” (notice of bond, ECF 67, p. 1).

The order directs that, “Within fourteen days,” the parties consult with one another and submit a joint report containing a litigation plan (ECF 65, p. 36).

November 4 plus 14 days is November 18, 2026. As of November 8, the ACLU’s case page lists the November 6 bail order as the most recent document, and the case record on CourtListener (a copy archived by NMD on November 9, updated that day at 6:42 a.m.) ends with the November 4 order; no subsequent ruling was found.

Outstanding Legal Issues

• If the Eleventh Circuit reviews the November 4 order: appeal filed on November 5 (ECF 66); NMD has not determined whether the plaintiffs requested a stay of the appointment in the meantime, nor has it identified the appeal case number.
• The CAIR III case (Northern District of Florida, Judge Winsor): The order addressed only the preliminary injunction; among other issues, the claims of retaliation and federal preemption (ECF 65, p. 5) remain unresolved, and the litigation plan expires on November 18.
• CAIR I (executive order): the governor’s appeal is pending before the Eleventh Circuit, which on October 13 ordered an oral argument to be scheduled, including the motion to recuse the original judge; On November 4, a magistrate judge granted Governor DeSantis’s motion to compel the production of documents and deemed the plaintiffs’ objections and “all First Amendment associational privilege claims of both plaintiffs” waived (ECF 116, p. 63).
• If a state can create a domestic designation system like this one—the ruling calls it “novel—and perhaps unprecedented”—it did not shut it down.
• Texas: the federal motion in the Western District of Texas and Paxton’s petition in Collin County; NMD found no resolution to either.
• Missing information: the State’s stipulation (cited only in the ACLU’s press release), the transcript of the October 28 hearing (ECF 64, restricted until February 8, 2027, so Cooper’s statement stands as press testimony) and the date the notice was posted.

Why It Matters

For residents of Miami-Dade and Florida, the ruling establishes an immediate practical rule: the designation is in effect and, according to the court, carries “criminal and civil penalties for certain activities” for those designated and for those who support them (ECF 65, p. 1). The only point the judge held back on: state prosecutors and the attorney general cannot enforce Section 775.33(3) against CAIR-Florida, the CAIR Foundation, their employees, or third parties for providing them with legal services; the order took effect upon the posting of a $1,000 bond, which was filed on November 6 (ECF 65, p. 36; ECF 67).

CAIR states on its website that it does not accept donations from or provide support to anyone who lives in or is in Florida.

The case leaves an unresolved legal question that the court did not address: whether a state can designate a domestic organization as a terrorist group through an administrative process with criminal consequences—something the judge himself calls “novel—and perhaps unprecedented.” Meanwhile, an organization that, according to the Tallahassee Democrat, has had its office in Temple Terrace for more than twenty years, has suspended its activities in Florida.

The Government’s Allegations and CAIR’s Response

Charles J. Cooper, of the law firm Cooper & Kirk, is listed as counsel for the defendants (ECF 55, p. 55; also in ECF 58, p. 2).

ECF 55,

ECF 58

Reporter Stephany Matat, who covered the October 28 hearing, quotes him as saying: “‘It is Florida’s view that CAIR is Hamas’ largest charitable front,’ said Charles Cooper” (Tallahassee Democrat, Oct. 29).

In his November 4 article, he summarizes that Cooper told the judge that Florida views CAIR as “Hamas’ largest charitable front” (Tallahassee Democrat, Nov. 4).

Another media outlet reports a different account of the same hearing: according to WLRN, Cooper told Winsor that CAIR serves as a “terrorist front group” for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which “hides its activities behind a charitable organization.”

The official transcript (ECF 64) exists—as the order cites it on page 2—but it is under restriction until February 8, 2027, according to entry 64 of the case record. Until it can be read, Cooper’s exact words in the courtroom are based on press reports from two different sources, not a verbatim transcript.

In writing, the government did say something that can be quoted verbatim. The October 12 motion to dismiss begins as follows: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations was founded as a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood—a role it continues to serve today.” It adds that the Department of Justice listed CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial (ECF 55, p. 9).

Page 9 of the PDF (page 1 of the brief) of the State of Florida’s motion to dismiss dated October 12, 2026, ECF 55: “was founded as a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood”

On page 51 of the PDF (page 43 of the brief), the government argues that resorting to ordinary criminal law “is not an effective remedy when dealing with front groups that, like CAIR, conceal nefarious conduct behind the façade of civil rights advocacy and charitable activities” (ECF 55, p. 51 of the PDF).

That is the government’s position, not a conclusion reached by the court. The November 4 order summarizes it as follows: the defendants “say Plaintiffs operate as fronts for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. ECF No. 55 at 9,” while the plaintiffs maintain that their mission, “rooted in faith, is to enhance the public’s understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims” (ECF 65, p. 6).

The attorney general wrote on X that the court “upheld Florida’s Domestic Terrorist Organization law and rejected CAIR’s attempt to stop the designations” (Uthmeier on X, Nov. 5). The second part is consistent with the court order; there is no mention in the order that the court supported the argument put forward by the Hamas front.

James Uthmeier, Florida’s attorney general, wrote on X on November 5, 2026, that the court “upheld Florida’s Domestic Terrorist Organization law and rejected CAIR’s attempt to stop the designations.” Photo: official portrait, myfloridalegal.com/ag-bio.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) posted on X that “A federal court has affirmed Florida’s designation of CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as domestic terrorist organizations,” according to Yahoo; the ruling addressed only the petition filed by CAIR-Foundation and CAIR-Florida regarding their own designations; the designations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Antifa were not at issue in that lawsuit (Yahoo, Nov. 6). The ruling mentions the Muslim Brotherhood only once, when summarizing the defendants’ position: “Defendants, on the other hand, say Plaintiffs operate as fronts for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood” (ECF 65, p. 6).

Both sides, in their own words

On the state’s side: Florida argues in its brief that CAIR is a front organization for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and that the designation was legitimate; the attorney general celebrated the ruling (“Great win by our Solicitor General’s office and for the people of Florida!” in his post on X on Nov. 5). The RAIR Foundation, which supports this interpretation, titled its article “A Win in Florida as CAIR ‘Hamas’ Largest Charitable Front’ Shuts Down Operations After DeSantis Administration’s Terror Designation” and wrote that “an Islamic terrorist front is an Islamic terrorist front”—an opinion expressed by the site that the ruling does not reflect (RAIR, Nov. 5).

In December 2025, following CAIR’s announcement that it would file a lawsuit against the governor’s executive order (according to Florida’s Voice), the attorney general wrote on X on the 9th: “CAIR does not have the constitutional right to provide material support to terrorism, and we look forward to discovery” (Uthmeier on X, Dec. 9, 2025).

According to a report by Florida’s Voice on December 9, 2025, Governor Ron DeSantis said at a press conference: “I welcome the lawsuit, because what will happen is that it will give the state of Florida discovery rights—to subpoena the bank records, to be able to do that” (Florida’s Voice, Dec. 9, 2025). NMD was unable to locate the recording of that press conference: the quote is verified on the news outlet’s website, which attributes it to the governor, though not in his own words.

From the organization’s perspective: CAIR-Florida “categorically rejects” the designation and calls it “baseless” (Rahim). ACLU attorney Ashley Gorski said the ruling “upholds state officials’ sweeping power to punish American organizations they brand as ‘terrorist,’ without due process and in violation of the First Amendment” (ACLU of Florida). The statement maintains that neither organization “has ever been charged, let alone convicted of, any crime.” At the hearing, Gorski said that “the terrorism label is easily abused in order to target disfavored speech” (Tallahassee Democrat, Oct. 29).

What Is Each Piece of Evidence?

Background: The federal government, Texas, and the Holy Land Foundation

The State of Florida, the governor of Texas, and the Texas attorney general have linked CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood. The federal government has taken action against the Muslim Brotherhood, not against CAIR. Executive Order 14362, signed on November 24, 2025, directed an assessment of certain national branches (govinfo).

On January 13, 2026, the State Department and the Treasury Department designated the Lebanese branch as a foreign terrorist organization and a global terrorist organization, and the Egyptian and Jordanian branches as global terrorist organizations (State Department; Treasury).

Outside the United States, the United Arab Emirates included the “Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)” on the list of 83 terrorist organizations that its Cabinet approved in November 2014 pursuant to Federal Law No. 7 of 2014, the same list that includes “The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organization and groups” (The National, Nov. 16, 2014).

In “Is the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization? 46 Years and 4 Documented Legal Paths,” NMD broke down, country by country, which countries have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which have banned it, and which have refused to do so.

Texas

Texas took a different approach: not a law requiring a designation process, but a governor’s proclamation. On November 18, 2025, Greg Abbott announced that he was designating the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR “as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations,” prohibiting them from “purchasing or acquiring land in Texas” (statement from the governor of Texas).

CAIR Texas, CAIR DFW, and CAIR Austin filed a lawsuit against Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:25-cv-01878). The original complaint was filed on November 20, 2025, and the amended complaint was filed on January 6, 2026, “adding CAIR Texas as a Plaintiff,” according to the January 22, 2026, motion—the document NMD has reviewed—which does not name the judge (ECF 30, p. 3).

In that motion, they sought a preliminary injunction regarding two charges: that Proclamation 41-4241 exceeds the governor’s authority and encroaches on an exclusive federal jurisdiction,

and that imposes punitive consequences “without any notice or opportunity to be heard” (ECF 30, pp. 1–2; pp. 5–6 of the PDF).

On February 5, 2026, Paxton went a step further: he filed a petition in a Collin County District Court against five defendants, the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR-Foundation, CAIR-Texas, CAIR-Texas Dallas Fort Worth, and CAIR-Austin, in which he seeks to have them declared a foreign terrorist organization and a transnational criminal organization and to prohibit them from “engaging in any activities within the State of Texas” or, alternatively, the gang activities listed in the Texas Code of Civil Practice and Remedies, § 125.061 (petition by the State of Texas, p. 31; 32 pages, read in its entirety; case number blank).

Page 31 of the State of Texas’s complaint against the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, Collin County District Court, February 5, 2026: The complaint seeks to have all defendants designated as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” and “Transnational Criminal Organizations” and to prohibit them from “engaging in any activities within the State of Texas.”

The press release mentioned the chapters in “Austin, Houston, and DFW”; no Houston chapter is listed among the defendants. In the petition, Houston appears as the address for the registered agents of CAIR-Texas and CAIR-Austin, and in paragraph 89, in connection with third-party acts unrelated to CAIR that the complaint attributes to “Muslim Brotherhood-inspired” groups (pp. 4, 21, and 22). The press release also states that “CAIR-Texas’s founding board member was convicted in 2008 of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation, and CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case” (Texas Attorney General, Feb. 5, 2026).

The Texas Tribune quotes a CAIR spokesperson as saying: “We have also defeated Greg Abbott’s attacks on the Constitution three times in a row. We look forward to doing so again.” NMD has not found a ruling on the motion filed in the Western District of Texas or on Paxton’s petition.

The latest information available indicates that, as of March 4, 2026, the federal motion was still in the discovery phase, with the plaintiffs’ reply scheduled for March 27 (Florida ECF 43, p. 2, note 2). It could not be verified how the two cases ultimately concluded.

The similarity lies in the substance, not the outcome. In both states, an organization called CAIR is challenging a terrorist designation issued by a state authority in federal court; however, the documents are not equivalent: Texas is challenging a proclamation, while Florida is challenging a law and a designation that was approved following written notice and objections.

The Holy Land Foundation

CAIR is not included in those federal designations. Its attorneys state, in the ACLU press release, that “Neither group has ever been charged, let alone convicted of, any crime.” One of the origins of the debate over CAIR is the federal case involving the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas-based charity. In 2008, a Dallas jury convicted the foundation and its leaders of financing Hamas, according to the Department of Justice.

Prosecutors had included CAIR on a list of 246 “unindicted co-conspirators” (Fifth Circuit, 2010, p. 3).

Page 3 of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion dated October 20, 2010, United States v. Holy Land Foundation (NAIT appeal), No. 09-10875: the list of “246 individuals and entities,” the “unfortunate oversight” acknowledged by the Government, and footnote 1, “CAIR is not a party to this appeal.”

Ghassan Elashi, who had served as chairman of the board of the Holy Land Foundation according to the Department of Justice (“HLF’s former Chairman of the Board,” press release dated Nov. 24, 2008), was, according to Lorenzo Vidino’s study for the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, “the founding board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter” (Vidino, 2023, p. 13).

In 2011, the Fifth Circuit upheld his 65-year prison sentence (United States v. El-Mezain, p. 15). That does not mean that the national organization CAIR has been charged or convicted: it refers to the conduct of a founder of a local chapter.

Lara Burns, a retired FBI agent who led the investigation into that case, submitted a written statement to the Senate on August 5, 2026: “As of 1994, the four U.S.-based Hamas front organizations were the HLF, IAP, UASR, and CAIR” (Burns’ testimony, p. 19).

In 2009, the FBI wrote to Senator Jon Kyl stating that evidence presented at the trial had “demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee,” as well as a relationship between that committee and Hamas, and that “in light of that evidence,” it had suspended “all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI” (FBI letter, April 28, 2009).

In the following sentence, the letter states that this decision “was not intended to reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization and its entire membership”; and it continues: “Nevertheless, until we can determine whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.” The letter adds that CAIR, its executives, and its members were encouraged to report hate crimes, violations of federal civil rights, or suspicious activities to the FBI (FBI letter, April 28, 2009).

In September 2013, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General published a review of that policy. According to the report, the FBI established the policy in 2008 in the wake of the criminal proceeding “in which CAIR and other organizations were named as unindicted co-conspirators,” and describes it as follows: “The policy broadly prohibited non-investigative community outreach interactions with CAIR, such as attending CAIR-sponsored events and allowing CAIR to attend FBI-sponsored events, while permitting interactions regarding civil rights complaints and criminal investigations” (Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Report I-2013-007R, pp. 1 and 31).

The same report found that in three of the five cases it reviewed, FBI field offices did not coordinate their contacts with CAIR as required by that policy (p. 1). It also states that the FBI restricted those contacts, in part, to “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies” (p. 1).

Page 19 (page 20 of the PDF) of Lara Burns’ written testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, August 5, 2026: “As of 1994, the four U.S.-based Hamas front organizations were the HLF, IAP, UASR, and CAIR.” This is the witness’s assertion, not a judicial finding.

Letter from the FBI to Senator Jon Kyl dated April 28, 2009, signed by Richard C. Powers, Assistant Director, published by a media outlet: “the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI” and, in the following sentence, “was not intended to reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization and its entire membership.”

On the other side, there is also supporting documentation. The Fifth Circuit wrote in 2010, regarding another entity on the same list—the North American Islamic Trust—that its inclusion was “simply an untested allegation by the Government” (p. 10) and that the findings “do not amount to a ruling that NAIT took part in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas” (p. 12); the same opinion clarifies that “CAIR is not a party to this appeal” (Fifth Circuit, 2010, pp. 3, 10, and 12).

The Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), in INSS Insight No. 2100 by Elad Ben David, dated February 12, 2026, wrote that “questions regarding CAIR’s alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood have persisted, based on considerable historical connections,” because some of its founders, including Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, were previously active in the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), “an organization considered close to Hamas.”

The same analysis adds that their names appeared in documents gathered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case, “but not as defendants or convicts,” and that “no legal proof has been presented to date of a formal or institutional link between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas” (INSS).

Page 10 of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, No. 09-10875: “NAIT’s inclusion in the brief was simply an untested allegation by the Government.”

Page 12 of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, No. 09-10875: “The district court’s findings do not amount to a ruling that NAIT took part in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas.”

The November 4, 2026, order does not determine whether Florida’s allegations against CAIR are true: “the issue at this stage is not whether Plaintiffs are, in fact, terrorist organizations” (ECF 65, p. 6). Each side maintains its position: the State of Florida asserts in its brief that CAIR is a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood; CAIR denies this.

Timeline of Cases and Events

Sources consulted

Level 1, court and official documents:

1. CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521, ECF 65, order dated Nov. 4, 2026
2. CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521, ECF 66, notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Nov. 5, 2026 (copy published by the ACLU)
3. CAIR-Foundation v. DeSantis, 4:26-cv-521, ECF 67, Notice of Deposit of Bond, Nov. 6, 2026 (copy published by the ACLU)
4. ECF 55, State Civil Service Exam, Oct. 12, 2026
5. ECF 28, order dated Oct. 6, 2026; ECF 56, Walker’s recusal, Oct. 15; ECF 58, notice from the State, Oct. 15
6. CAIR I, 4:25-cv-516, ECF 43, Mar. 4, 2026; ECF 44, Mar. 6; ECF 110, Oct. 15; ECF 116, Nov. 4
7. CAIR II, 4:26-cv-315: ECF 26, ECF 41, ECF 50, ECF 60
8. CAIR II, 4:26-cv-315, ECF 69, order dismissing the case for lack of standing, Oct. 1, 2026
9. CAIR Texas et al. v. Abbott et al., W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-01878, ECF 30, Jan. 22, 2026
10. Governor of Texas, statement dated Nov. 18, 2025
11. Texas Attorney General, press release dated Feb. 5, 2026
12. State of Texas v. Muslim Brotherhood et al., original petition in the Collin County District Court, Feb. 5, 2026 (published by the Texas Attorney General)
13. Executive Order 14362, Nov. 24, 2025
14. U.S.Department of State, Designations of Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates, Jan. 13, 2026; U.S. Departmentof the Treasury, sb0357
15. Department of Justice, Holy Land Foundation Sentences, Nov. 24, 2008
16. Fifth Circuit, NAIT Appeal, No. 09-10875, Oct. 20, 2010; United States v. El-Mezain, No. 09-10560, Dec. 7, 2011
17. Written testimony by Lara Burns before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, Aug. 5, 2026
18. Letter from the FBI to Senator Kyl, April 28, 2009 (hosted by a media outlet)
19. Florida Statutes 2026, § 943.03102 (designation of terrorist organizations; effects); 775.30; 775.33; 775.34; 617.1420; 823.05; Chapter 874, Online Sunshine, official website of the Florida Legislature (leg.state.fl.us), downloaded on Nov. 8 and 9, 2026
20. Florida Senate, Bill CS/CS/HB 1471 (2026 Session)
21. Florida Senate, Bill CS/CS/HB 1473 (2026 session)
22. Florida Administrative Record, vol. 52, no. 178, Sept. 14, 2026: Emergency Rule 11RER26-8 (pp. 3967 and 3968)
23. Florida Administrative Record, vol. 52, no. 194, Oct. 6, 2026: FDLE notices designating CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa (pp. 4405 and 4406)
24. Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, “Review of FBI Interactions with the Council on American-Islamic Relations,” Report I-2013-007R, September 2013
25. Florida Governor’s Executive Order 25-244, “Protecting Floridians from Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations,” Dec. 8, 2025 (flgov.com)

Level 2: Press releases, reports, and media:

23. ACLU of Florida, press release dated Nov. 5, 2026 (plaintiffs’ attorney)
24. Lorenzo Vidino, Program on Extremism, George Washington University, 2023
25. INSS, Israel Institute for National Security Studies
26. Tallahassee Democrat/USA TODAY Network, Nov. 4, 2026, and Oct. 29, 2026
27. Yahoo (Juan Carlos Chavez), Nov. 6, 2026
28. Florida Phoenix, Nov. 5, 2026
29. WLRN, Nov. 5, 2026
30. WUSF (Gabriella Paul), published by Central Florida Public Media, Nov. 6, 2026, with photos of the notice
31. WLRN (Sofia Zarran), Nov. 9, 2026
32. Washington Times, Nov. 5, 2026
33. The Independent Florida Alligator, Nov. 5, 2026
34. The Texas Tribune, Feb. 5, 2026
35. Florida’s Voice (Michelle Vecerina), Dec. 9, 2025, on the announcement of CAIR’s lawsuit and the reactions of the governor and the attorney general
36. The National (United Arab Emirates), list of terrorist organizations approved by the Cabinet, Nov. 16, 2014

Level 3, context (positions attributed to the author):

36. RAIR Foundation, Nov. 5, 2026
37. James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General, on X, Nov. 5, 2026
38. James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General, on X, second post on Nov. 5, 2026
39. James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General, on X, Dec. 9, 2025

Disclaimer

This investigation is based on court rulings and briefs, state legislation, official documents, and public statements cited in the article. Allegations made by government authorities are expressly attributed to their authors. The responses from the organizations involved are presented with the same distinction between allegations, established facts, and court decisions. The federal court order dated November 4, 2026, ruled on a request for a preliminary injunction and does not constitute a final judicial determination regarding the allegations made against CAIR. News Miami Dade provides documentary references so that readers can examine the sources directly.

Stay up to date with the latest news!

A 36-page court order, three lawsuits in Florida, two in Texas, and an appointment effective as of November 5: At News Miami Dade, we track every document in the case file with a link so you can read it for yourself—rather than relying on what one party or another says. Don’t miss a single detail. Follow the case here, on News Miami Dade

#MiamiDade #Florida #CAIRFlorida #NorthernFloridaDistrict #FirstAmendment