After his announcement this week that he would seek to eliminate “all vaccine mandates,” Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, made one thing clear: This decision was based on no science, just vibes. In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday morning, Ladapo told host Jake Tapper that officials did not undertake any analysis to determine how many new cases of  hepatitis A, whooping cough, and chickenpox would arise after the ending of vaccine mandates. “There’s this conflation of the science and sort of, what is the right and wrong thing to do?” Ladapo said, before proceeding to claim that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective at preventing transmission. (Research has shown the whooping cough vaccine is safe and effective; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the protection they provide “decreases over time.”) He continued: “This is an issue very clearly of parents’ rights. So do I need to analyze whether it’s appropriate for parents to be able to decide what goes into their children’s bodies?” > "Absolutely not." @FLSurgeonGen admits he didn't study impact before calling > to lift vaccine mandate pic.twitter.com/bJCo0aNvk0 > > — State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) September 7, 2025 In fact, as my colleague Kiera Butler explained when Ladapo announced his decision this week it is an issue of public health—not “parents’ rights”: > If successful, such a move could have broad implications for workers across > state government sectors. Most significantly, it could allow many more > unvaccinated children to attend school, putting others at risk of acquiring > highly contagious and potentially deadly diseases such as measles and polio. > > Under Ladapo’s leadership, Florida’s rates of routine childhood > vaccination—shots that protect against catastrophic diseases like polio and > tetanus—have already declined. Today, the immunization rate for kindergartners > is 90 percent, the lowest it’s been in a decade, and below the threshold > required to prevent the spread of some serious illnesses. The rate of families > seeking religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements has increased over > the past few years. All this is part of why, as Tapper mentioned, experts ranging from Ladapo’s predecessor, Scott Rivkees, to major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have voiced their opposition to the plan. A Washington Post-KFF poll conducted in July also found that more than 80 percent of Florida parents said public schools should require vaccines for measles and polio, with some health and religious exceptions. A new NBC News poll out today shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat support vaccines. Even President Donald Trump seems skeptical of Ladapo’s decision, telling reporters in the Oval Office this week: “I think we have to be very careful. We have some vaccines that are so amazing… I think you have to be very careful when you say that some people don’t have to be vaccinated.” > Even President Trump gets it right once in awhile. > > Vaccines are safe and effective. They have saved millions of lives. > > Sadly, Sec. Kennedy disagrees. > > We need an HHS Secretary who believes in science, not conspiracy > theories.pic.twitter.com/14D0Gnet11 > > — Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 6, 2025 Later in the CNN interview, Ladapo seemed to slightly revise his argument, claiming that officials did not do any projections ahead of killing off vaccine mandates because they already recognized that outbreaks would, in fact, be inevitable: “We don’t need to do any projections. We handle outbreaks all the time. So there’s nothing special that we would need to do. And, secondly, again, there are countries that don’t have vaccine mandates, and the sky isn’t falling over there.” So, buckle up, Florida. Your surgeon general just admitted that outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease are coming.

An appeals court has temporarily blocked a federal judge’s decision ordering Florida and federal officials to begin winding down operations at Alligator Alcatraz, the controversial immigration detention center in the Everglades that opened in July.  As I reported last month, in response to a lawsuit filed in June by environmental groups, US District Judge Kathleen Williams had ordered the dismantling of equipment at the detention camp, such as fencing, lighting, generators, and other infrastructure, as well as a pause on the transfer of detainees to the site. The groups had argued that the construction of the camp proceeded without an environmental review or opportunity for public comment, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. But the state of Florida argued that the facility was a state-run operation, and, therefore, federal environmental protection laws did not apply. Hastily erected in late June on a remote airfield by Big Cypress National Preserve, Alligator Alcatraz has been fraught with reports of malfunctioning air conditioners, scarce food, and rampant mosquitoes. Detainees are held in large white tents, each containing multiple fenced areas with 32 beds and three toilets. State and federal officials running the center have previously stated that the camp would be for immigrants with criminal records, but as the Miami Herald reported in July, many detainees have no prior arrests. In July, nearly 1,000 detainees were being held at Alligator Alcatraz. This week, The New York Times reported that between 120 to 125 detainees are currently at the center.  In her ruling, Williams had sided with the environmentalists. “The project was requested by the federal government; built with a promise of full federal funding; constructed in compliance with ICE standards; staffed by deputized ICE Task Force Officers acting under color of federal authority and at the direction and supervision of ICE officials,” she wrote, “and exists for the sole purpose of detaining and deporting those subject to federal immigration enforcement.” Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier promptly filed a notice indicating the state would appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In a 2-3 decision on Thursday, the three-judge panel in Atlanta granted the defendants’ request to pause Williams’ ruling pending a future decision on the appeal. The judges found that the detention center did not violate NEPA because it was funded by the state and not the federal government. “Obtaining funding from the federal government for a state project requires completing a formal and technical application process,” the ruling states, which has not yet occurred. Alligator Alcatraz is predicted to cost $450 million a year, and the DeSantis administration has previously stated it would seek FEMA funds to cover those expenses. > “Alligator Alcatraz is in fact, like we always said, open for business.” Florida officials celebrated the ruling on social media. “Alligator Alcatraz is in fact, like we always said, open for business,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a video posted to his X account. “We are going to continue leading the way when it comes to immigration enforcement.” Meanwhile, Friends of the Everglades, one of the plaintiffs in the case, issued a statement saying that “the case is far from over.” “While disappointing, we never expected ultimate success to be easy,” Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, said in the statement. “We’re hopeful the preliminary injunction will be affirmed when it’s reviewed on its merits during the appeal.” Talbert Cypress, chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, which later joined the lawsuit as a plaintiffs due to the detention center’s close proximity to their communities in the Everglades, told the Miami Herald they were “disappointed in the majority’s decision to stay the injunction. We were prepared for this result and will continue to litigate this matter.”

A federal judge in Miami has ruled that operations at the controversial detention facility Alligator Alcatraz must begin to wind down, ordering state and federal officials to stop transferring detainees there and relocate current detainees within 60 days. Two weeks after US District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, ordered a temporary pause on any new construction at Alligator Alcatraz, in response to a suit by environmental groups, she has now ordered the dismantling of equipment at the detention camp, such as fencing, lighting, generators, and other infrastructure. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a notice indicating the state would appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The US Department of Homeland Security previously said in court filings that it was not in charge of operations at Alligator Alcatraz, and the facility was solely the responsibility of Florida, “using state funds on state lands under state emergency authority.” The state argued that the environmental groups that had filed the lawsuit are seeking relief under the National Environmental Policy Act, which does not apply to state agencies.  But in her 82-page ruling filed on Thursday night, Williams disagreed. “The project was requested by the federal government; built with a promise of full federal funding; constructed in compliance with ICE standards; staffed by deputized ICE Task Force Officers acting under color of federal authority and at the direction and supervision of ICE officials,” she wrote, “and exists for the sole purpose of detaining and deporting those subject to federal immigration enforcement.” > “While the Defendants repeatedly espouse the importance of immigration > enforcement, they offered little to no evidence why this detention camp, in > this particular location, is uniquely suited and critical to that mission.” “While the Defendants repeatedly espouse the importance of immigration enforcement, they offered little to no evidence why this detention camp, in this particular location, is uniquely suited and critical to that mission,” the order continued. As I wrote in June, two environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal court against federal and state officials to halt the Alligator Alcatraz project. They argued that construction proceeded without an environmental review or opportunity for public comment, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. On Friday, the plaintiffs applauded Williams’s ruling. “This decision sends a clear message that environmental laws must be respected by leaders at the highest levels of our government—and there are consequences for ignoring them,” Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, said in a written statement. For weeks, plaintiffs have filed declarations building their case for how the detention camp could potentially impact the neighboring ecosystems and wildlife. Traffic to and from the detention site increases the likelihood of panthers being struck by vehicles, according to court filings, and light pollution could destroy the nighttime foraging abilities of bats in the area. Last week, Williams concluded a four-day hearing during which she heard testimony from ten witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits. She questioned Jesse Panuccio, an attorney representing the state of Florida, asking for reasons to justify the decision to build a detention center in the Everglades in the first place, according to CNN. Florida wildlife experts also testified about the potential harm to animals in the area. Increased activity, one expert testified, would interfere with the mating habits of endangered panthers, UPI reported. During the hearing, members of the environmental team from the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians testified that 80 percent of the Tribe’s “residences, two schools, and the Tribal governmental building, are all located in the Miccosukee Reserved Area, a few miles southeast” of the detention camp, Williams’s order states. Any “uncontained wastewater or run-off” leaving the site would likely flow into the Miccosukee Reserved Area.  From the beginning, the camp has been mired in controversy. Hastily erected in late June on a remote airfield by Big Cypress National Preserve, it is predicted to cost $450 million per year to run. As reported by family members, attorneys, and lawmakers, the facility has been fraught with malfunctioning air conditioners, scarce food, and rampant mosquitoes. Detainees are offered no recreational time and are held in large white tents, each containing 32 beds and three toilets. They are separated into chain-link fenced areas. State and federal officials running the center have previously stated that the camp would be for immigrants with criminal records, but as the Miami Herald reported in July, many detainees have no prior arrests. In July, nearly 1,000 detainees were being held at Alligator Alcatraz. This week, a Democratic lawmaker who visited the detention camp told reporters the number had dropped to 336. Another Alligator Alcatraz ruling was issued this week. In a separate lawsuit filed in July, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that attorneys could not reach their clients held at the detention camp. They reported being unable to schedule appointments with clients and the government’s failure to designate an immigration court that would accept filings from detainees held at Alligator Alcatraz. Earlier this week, a federal judge dismissed part of the lawsuit after the government designated an immigration court for Alligator Alcatraz detainees. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to demand information about Alligator Alcatraz. More than 60 US lawmakers signed a letter sent to the Department of Homeland Security this week requesting details about its operations, the Florida Phoenix reported, including whether the facility is following federal standards for the treatment of detainees and details on inspections. “Given that DHS is working directly with the Florida state government on a detention facility with alarming implications,” the letter states, “DHS should ensure transparency and accountability surrounding the facility’s financing operations.” This request may be moot if Williams’s orders are obeyed, but given the state’s interest in appealing, the court case and the operations of Alligator Alcatraz will likely continue.

Deep in the Everglades, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s administration has swiftly begun construction of an ICE detention center on an airfield surrounded by wetlands that will house up to 1,000 detainees and could open as soon as next week. In a Friday interview with Fox News, DeSantis called the new center “Alligator Alcatraz” and said deportation flights could also take off from the airfield, which was previously used for military and law enforcement training. “This is going to be a force multiplier and we’re really happy to be working with the federal government to satisfy President Trump’s mandate,” he said. > DeSantis has pushed anti-immigrant laws and encouraged police to collaborate > with ICE. Florida is expected to pay $450 million a year to run the facility, with the possibility of being reimbursed by the federal government, the Miami Herald reported. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said the detention center will be mostly comprised of “light infrastructure,” the Herald reported, such as tents and trailers. He suggested in a video posted to X that the facility’s location would deter escapes: “People get out, there’s not much waiting for them other than alligators and pythons,” Uthmeier said The project has faced considerable backlash in recent days from immigrant advocacy groups, environmentalists, and Miami-Dade county mayor Daniella Levine Cava. The Miccosukee Tribe has also publicly opposed the construction of the center on its ancestral lands. “The state would save substantial taxpayer dollars by pursuing its goals at a different location with more existing infrastructure and less environmental and cultural impacts,” Talbert Cypress, chair of the tribe, wrote in a statement posted to Facebook.  On Friday, two environmentalist groups filed a lawsuit in federal court against federal and state officials to halt the project, the Tampa Bay Times reported, arguing that the project proceeded without an environmental review and opportunity for public comment. Instead, the complaint reads, construction has already commenced at a “breakneck pace,” as crews transported kitchen facilities, restrooms, industrial lighting, and dump trucks onto the airfield. The site is located within the Big Cypress National Preserve, “a nationally and State protected, and ecologically sensitive, area that serves as habitat for endangered and threatened species like the Florida panther, Florida bonneted bat, Everglade Snail kite, wood stork, and numerous other species,” according to the environmental groups’ complaint.  Plans for the center are largely a response to a nationwide surge in immigration detention. As my colleague Isabela Dias recently reported, the number of people held by ICE now surpasses 56,000—an unprecedented level. “The record high detention numbers also raise concerns about overcrowding, especially since the Department of Homeland Security is imposing new rules restricting access by members of Congress to ICE facilities,” she wrote. That Florida is undertaking such a massive detention center project is not a surprise. As I reported in April, under DeSantis the state has passed a slew of anti-immigrant laws and has encouraged local police and jails to collaborate with ICE on immigration arrests.   

Last week, the US Supreme Court lifted an order from a Massachusetts district court that had maintained humanitarian parole protections in place for about 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua who had been living in the United States legally under a Biden-era program. Advocacy groups in South Florida condemned the decision that will inevitably impact scores of immigrants and their families living in the area. In 2022, after immigration authorities noted an increase in the number of immigrants arriving at the border from these four countries, the Biden administration created a parole program known as CHNV (which stands for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans). The new program allowed applicants to come to the United States legally for two years as long as they passed background checks, had a sponsor based in the US, and had traveled to the US at no cost to the government. Earlier this year, the Trump administration revoked CHNV, citing in a Federal Register notice that the program is “unnecessary to achieve border security goals.” Attorneys representing CHNV recipients challenged the decision, and on April 14, a Massachusetts district judge blocked the termination of the program. This month, the Trump administration requested a stay from the US Supreme Court, which was granted on Friday, May 30.  At a virtual press conference hours after the decision was announced, Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, and an attorney in the case, said the Supreme Court’s decision “enacted the largest mass de-legalization program in US history.”  “Let me be clear. This is for a group of people who had lawful status until this morning, but who the Trump administration has forcibly rendered undocumented overnight,” Tumlin said, “and that should send a shiver down everyone’s spine.” > “This order gives ICE a green light to grab these immigrants and deport them > to the hell they escaped from in a legal way.” In Miami, Florida, the following Monday, representatives from several immigrant advocacy groups held a press conference to highlight what this decision would mean for the local community. Standing behind a lectern draped with flags from Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti, Paul Christian Namphy, political director for the Haitian community organization Family Action Network Movement, noted that immigrants who were directly affected by the Supreme Court’s decision were not present at the gathering because of “the dangers that they are facing right now.” “These individuals followed a rigorous legal process and are now being punished while their legal status is still being litigated,” Namphy said. “The court opens the door to mass deportations, family separations, and economic disruptions.” Silvia Muñoz, a member of the Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy organization, said immigrants enrolled in the parole program had faced hardships in their countries, such as food shortages and violence. The Biden administration intended for the parole program to offer them a humane and legal way to come to the US. “This order gives ICE a green light to grab these immigrants and deport them to the hell they escaped from in a legal way,” she said. She called on Republicans “who believed Trump’s promise to deport immigrants did not include their loved ones, to raise their voices in protest and total disregard for human life.” Adelys Ferro, director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, said that the Trump administration’s agenda against immigrants targets all nationalities, pointing to another recent US Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status protections for about 350,000 Venezuelans. “The attacks against immigrants are everywhere,” she said. “It’s not only one nationality. It’s all of us. They don’t want immigrants here.” Hours after Friday’s decision, Jack Maguire, development manager of the advocacy group Florida Immigrant Coalition, told Mother Jones that immigrant communities in the Miami area were already experiencing immense fear and anxiety in the wake of other anti-immigrant decisions by the Trump administration. And, as I wrote in April, Florida also leads the nation in the number of law enforcement agencies that are collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that requires all county jails to cooperate with ICE requests to detain immigrants booked into their facilities.  Add to these concerns, the threatened deportations would separate more families and negatively influence the state’s economy, he added. “Businesses are going to start losing employees,” he says. “The effects are going to be felt very immediately by the people with these statuses. But it’s also going to be felt community-wide.” The decision is not a final ruling on the merits of the case, Tumlin from the Justice Action Center added, “We’re committed to ensuring that our clients and the class members get a full-and-complete hearing as quickly as possible.” This decision would cause “irreparable harm,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”  Angel Leal, an immigration attorney in the Miami area, said he’s heard from humanitarian parole clients in recent days who are fearful of what will happen next in their cases. Many parole recipients have pending applications for other forms of relief. But still, in those cases, “they’re concerned and they’re scared.” “Even if everything’s been done correctly, and whatever immigration benefit they qualify for has already been applied for,” he said, “the sense of insecurity that it can all be taken away at any time is really what’s concerning to us and to our clients.”

Kareem Tabsch, co-founder of Miami Beach’s O Cinema, loves his hometown. He’s made an award-winning movie about Miami Beach’s historic Jewish community. He has been lauded in his local press for his contributions to South Florida’s artistic culture. And in 2008, he co-founded an arthouse movie theater to give his neighborhood access to independent films that would otherwise pass it by in favor of more lucrative screens elsewhere. But, until last week, Tabsch had never interacted much with Miami Beach’s municipal government. That changed on March 11th, when the cinema received a letter from Miami Beach mayor Steven Meiner, telling the business they had to cancel their planned showings of “No Other Land,” a documentary about a Palestinian village struggling to survive in the West Bank amid Israeli government and settler violence. If the movie theatre failed to comply, Meiner said he would introduce a City Council resolution to terminate the cinema’s lease in a city-owned building and revoke at least $40,000 in grant money.  On March 3rd, “No Other Land” made history when it won the Oscar for Best Documentary. But it still does not have a US distributor. That means that one-on-one deals with independent theaters like O Cinema are the only way US audiences can see the film. Tabsch’s patrons, he told Mother Jones, wanted “No Other” Land in particular: so, despite the eviction threat, O Cinema went ahead and screened the film. They sold out every single showing.  “We recognize that some stories—especially those rooted in real-world conflicts—can evoke strong feelings and passionate reactions. As they should,” O Cinema CEO Vivian Marthell said in a statement. “Our decision to screen ‘No Other Land’ is not a declaration of political alignment. It is a bold reaffirmation of our fundamental belief that every voice deserves to be heard.” T he resolution canceling O Cinema’s lease and withdrawing city funding is due for a vote on Wednesday. That same night, O Cinema’s public schedule lists another showing of “No Other Land.” I talked with Tabsch about what happens when your local government decides screening a film is “not consistent” with your city’s values.  How was the decision to screen “No Other Land” made?  The film had been on our radar pretty much all last year, because it’s been so universally lauded. People started asking us: When are you going to show it? So discussions began in the fall of last year. It’s a 69-seat theater, so scheduling is tricky…we kind of earmarked this early 2025 window. That was before the Academy Awards. We always try to show as many of the Academy Award nominees as possible, which is pretty common for art-house theaters.  At the time, when we programmed it, we were the only theater in South Florida showing “No Other Land.” We may have been the only theater in the state of Florida.  Now, after we’ve shown it, other theaters are coming in to show it.  O Cinema movie theater.Courtesy O Cinema Let’s talk about what happened with the mayor. How did you first hear about this threat of eviction?  We received a letter from the Mayor. The initial reaction, from many of us, was that this very clearly felt like a threat from our elected officials. And I don’t think in our history we have ever received any outreach from any local politician asking us about or questioning our programming.  It came across as a not-so-veiled threat to our future. Initially, we felt the future of our indie theater was threatened, and decided that we were not going to show the film. Vivian [Marthell, CEO of O Cinema] sent a letter to the mayor saying as much. But, very quickly, I think we all realized that was really against the mission of our organization, the spirit of independent film, and really an affront to the First Amendment. So, within 12 hours, she sent an email to the mayor where she informed him that we were actually going to go through with the screenings. And we went through with the screenings! Every screening of “No Other Land” at O Cinema was sold out.  The overwhelming feedback that I heard from members of the community was very positive. They were thankful that we were showing the film. Folks walked up to the staff and thanked them for showing the It’s very clear that Miami Beach audiences, in particular, wanted to see the film and were grateful to be able to do so. You, yourself, are a documentarian. As someone who makes documentary films, what was your reaction to all this?  As someone who’s born and raised and lives in this community and has seen the trajectory of its growth and evolution, I was really taken aback by the course this has taken. We see more and more attempts at censorship at different levels—especially at the federal government level, we’re seeing a lot of threats to freedom of expression. But I never truly expected that in this vibrant cultural community that is Miami Beach, where folks have so many different backgrounds, and many of them came fleeing oppression… I never expected our local government to decide that showing a film was so much against the values of the city that they had to shut us down. I never expected our local government to enact retribution against an arts organization for extending and fulfilling their artistic license and freedom to show films.  So, what happens now?  The Mayor’s resolution to defund the cinema and cancel its lease will come to a vote and a discussion on Wednesday. It’s my sincere hope that we will find an amicable solution to this.  I mean, listen, I respect deeply held views. And I know the subject matter of the film is certainly provocative, and it could evoke strong feelings. But good films evoke strong feelings. As a filmmaker, I always say you don’t have to like my movies, but I want to make you feel something one way or another.  This film, clearly, evokes strong feelings in local government. But I hope cooler heads will prevail and we can move forward operating in the city, because we love the city of Miami Beach, and our community loves us. That’s evident by how they come out to see our films, and how they came out to see this one. 

On Wednesday, the nonprofit organization Disability Rights Florida sued the Florida Department of Children and Families, claiming that the state agency failed to collect data and compile comprehensive annual reports on the people it’s involuntarily committing. Florida’s Baker Act, which first passed in 1971, has required specific data—including the length of commitments and the diagnoses of those committed—to be collected since 2007. But it hasn’t been doing that, according to Disability Rights Florida. What available data does show, however, is that children with alleged mental health issues in Florida are involuntarily committed at higher rates than children in other states under similar laws. From 2020 to 2021, around one in five people involuntarily committed under Florida’s Baker Act was 18 or younger. In 2020, Florida involuntarily committed a 6-year-old with ADHD, a case that made national news. > Children in Florida are involuntarily committed at higher rates than children > in other states under similar laws. To be committed under the Florida’s Baker Act, which is officially known as the Florida Mental Health Act, three criteria need to be met: a person must refuse a voluntary exam, be believed to have a mental illness, and be deemed a threat to themselves or others. After an initial hold of up to 72 hours, the person can be forced to continue to have involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment by a judge for up to six months, and this can be extended again at the judge’s discretion. “The Baker Act requires that DCF track important facts about how involuntary psychiatric care is used, like how long the average patient stays in a receiving facility,” said Sam Boyd, Southern Poverty Law Center senior attorney in a press release. SPLC and the Florida Health Justice Project are representing Disability Rights Florida in its lawsuit. “Its failure to do so interferes with Disability Rights Florida’s responsibility to protect and advocate for individuals subject to involuntary psychiatric examination.”  While the issues that Disability Rights Florida is alleging with data collection did not start under Governor Ron DeSantis, changes to the Baker Act have happened under him. DeSantis approved legislation this past June that would make it easier for police officers to put people on an involuntary psychiatric hold. DeSantis has previously claimed that involuntary commitments would stop mass shootings. However, research largely suggests that some mass shooters’ having a mental health diagnosis is more often coincidental than a contributing factor to such violence. A 2021 SPLC report found that the use of the Baker Act has outpaced the increase of mental health diagnoses in the state, especially for children. “This explosion in Baker Act use has coincided with a drastic increase in police presence in schools,” the report notes, “suggesting that the Baker Act is being used punitively in some cases, like juvenile arrests and incarceration, to target and remove children that teachers, administrators, and school police perceive as uncontrollable or undesirable.” SPLC highlighted that at Palm Beach schools during the 2019-2020 school year, 40 percent of students involuntarily committed were Black, despite making up 28 percent of the student population. Involuntary commitments may also play a role in how forthcoming people may be about their mental health. One small 2019 study, for instance, found that people were less likely to want to disclose concerning psychiatric symptoms, such as suicidal ideations, to a mental health provider after an involuntary commitment. The Florida Department of Children and Families did not reply to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The lawsuit, which the state has not responded to yet, requests that the court require the state agency to start collecting better data and compile annual reports.