Florida GOP Sues to Pull a Democratic TV Ad Over the Expunged Hope Florida Grand Jury Report
The Republican Party of Florida says airing what the report says now breaks the state's grand jury secrecy law. Free-press lawyers call it a prior restraint. No judge has ruled, and early voting starts Monday in many counties.
By Rachel Dunmore, Washington Correspondent
Published · 6 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
BREAKING / DEVELOPING: The complaint was filed late Friday, Oct. 17, in Highlands County. As of Sunday night, no judge had ruled. Radio Purple has not obtained the complaint itself; its contents are reported here as described by the Florida Trident. All times ET.
The Republican Party of Florida has asked a state judge to stop a Florida Democratic Party TV ad about the Hope Florida grand jury report from airing, about two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.
The party filed a verified complaint in Highlands County circuit court late Friday, Oct. 17, the Florida Trident reported. It asks for a temporary restraining order entered without notice to the other side. According to the Trident, the suit names:
- the Florida Democratic Party
- three of its statewide candidates, who approved the 30-second ad: David Jolly for governor, Jose Javier Rodriguez for attorney general, and Annette Taddeo for chief financial officer
- the owners of 11 TV stations in the Orlando and Tampa Bay markets
The ad concerns Attorney General James Uthmeier, who is on the ballot. The complaint describes him as "the candidate the advertisement targets," the Trident reported.
The legal theory. The suit relies on an Oct. 7 opinion by Florida's First District Court of Appeal, written by Judge Lance Neff, that directs the lower court "to expunge the Presentment in its entirety." The party argues that once the report is expunged, broadcasting its "content, gist, or import" violates the state's grand jury secrecy law. That statute makes it unlawful for anyone "knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate" grand jury testimony "or the content, gist, or import thereof," except in listed circumstances. A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor and criminal contempt of court.
In a letter to station managers Friday, party lawyer Benjamin Gibson wrote: "The law then is straightforward. Knowingly broadcasting advertisements built on the contents of the confidential Presentment is criminal conduct in Florida." The letter said the party was "referring this matter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and relevant prosecutorial authorities," according to the Trident.
Timing. The complaint says urgency comes from the calendar: mail ballots are out, and early voting begins Monday in many counties. "Voters who cast ballots on the strength of the Advertisement can't recast them," the party wrote, as quoted by the Trident. The appeals court opinion itself is marked "Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion" for rehearing. The Trident reported that, under the court's rules, the ruling would not take effect until this Friday at the earliest. Asked whether the suit was premature, Republican Party of Florida chair Evan Power told the Trident: "they're not going to change their minds."
The Democratic Party, the candidates and the station owners had not responded as of the Trident's report.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Critics say the request is a prior restraint: a court order barring speech before it happens. "If you look back at the purpose of the First Amendment it is to prevent the government from silencing the press. We consent to be governed in this country. If informing voters about what their government has been doing is made unlawful or prohibited, democracy will inevitably collapse," attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen told the Trident.
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a very high bar for prior restraints. In Near v. Minnesota (1931), it struck down a state law that let courts shut down newspapers for publishing "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" material. In the Pentagon Papers case (1971), it refused to stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War, holding that the government had not met its heavy burden. And in Butterworth v. Smith (1990), the Court held that this same Florida statute could not be used to stop a grand jury witness from talking about his own testimony after the grand jury's term had ended.
Critics also say the contents are already public. The appeals court itself noted that "the Presentment has already been publicly disclosed." The Trident reported that a Miami news organization published the full report on Aug. 26. The opinion, which the party attached to its complaint, describes the report at length and is posted on the court's website.
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
Two principles are colliding here, and both are real. Grand jury secrecy protects witnesses and people who are never charged. That is why the appeals court ordered this report expunged, and why one member of the panel, Judge Bilbrey, would have done so on the disclosure ground alone. A free press is protected against orders that stop speech before it happens, and courts have rarely allowed such orders.
The legal questions are narrow but serious. Does an expungement order turn already-published material into something no one may broadcast? Does a statute written to protect grand jury testimony reach a political ad built on a report that is already public? And can a court act before the appeals ruling is even final? None of it has been decided.
What both sides should want is speed. Early voting starts Monday in many counties, and voters deserve to know, before they cast ballots, what may lawfully be said on the air. Should a judge rule on this before early voting begins, or after the appeals ruling is final?
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The Republican Party says it is asking the court to enforce a secrecy law that protects people a grand jury did not charge. The appeals court found that the grand jury "returned no indictment, conceding it lacked sufficient evidence to charge anyone." It held that "a grand jury may investigate and report, but it may not declare conduct unlawful and then decline to charge it, and it may not condemn people by name without indicting them."
The majority also rejected the report's central premise. "The $10 million provided to Hope Florida in the Centene settlement was never public money," Neff wrote in a footnote, adding that "the Florida Legislature has not made such action illegal." The opinion called the decision to accept the settlement "a lawful exercise of executive discretion." It said the report's release before those named could seek its suppression "has caused irreparable harm." Gov. Ron DeSantis called the ruling "probably the biggest judicial smackdown that I have ever seen in my entire career as an elected official," WLRN reported.
The opinion also noted that the disclosure of the report "may itself have violated" the secrecy statute, though the court said it expressed "no view on the lawfulness of its publication by the press."
The party says its request is limited. According to the Trident, the complaint calls it "narrowly tailored" and says it "does not ask the Court to restrain commentary on the candidates, the settlement, or the First District's opinion." The party also argues that federal law shielding stations from libel suits over candidate ads covers defamation, not a state criminal law on grand jury secrecy.
Sources & Citations
- Florida First District Court of Appeal, “In re: Leon County Grand Jury Presentment, Fall of 2025, No. 1D2026-2435 (opinion)”, October 7, 2026.
- The Florida Senate, “Section 905.27, Florida Statutes: Testimony not to be disclosed; exceptions”, January 1, 2025.
- Florida Trident (Michael Barfield), “Florida GOP Sues TV Stations Over Hope Florida Ad”, October 18, 2026.
- WGCU, “Florida Trident report, republished by WGCU”, October 18, 2026.
- WLRN (from The Florida Trib), “How state officials fought for months to keep a lid on Hope Florida”, October 9, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.