[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13135 ____________________

HONEYFUND.COM INC, CHEVARA ORRIN, WHITESPACE CONSULTING LLC, d.b.a. Collective Concepts LLC, PRIMO TAMPA LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, SENIOR CHAIR OF THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER OF THE COMMISSION, MARIO GARZA, et al., USCA11 Case: 22-13135 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 2 of 22

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13135

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00227-MW-MAF ____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. GRANT, Circuit Judge: This is not the first era in which Americans have held widely divergent views on important areas of morality, ethics, law, and public policy. And it is not the first time that these disagreements have seemed so important, and their airing so dangerous, that something had to be done. But now, as before, the First Amendment keeps the government from putting its thumb on the scale. The State of Florida seeks to bar employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints the state finds offensive. But meetings on those same topics are allowed if speakers endorse viewpoints the state agrees with, or at least does not object to. This law, as Florida concedes, draws its distinctions based on viewpoint—the most pernicious of dividing lines under the First Amendment. But the state insists that ordinary First Amendment review does not apply because the law restricts conduct, not speech. USCA11 Case: 22-13135 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 3 of 22

22-13135 Opinion of the Court 3

We cannot agree, and we reject this latest attempt to control speech by recharacterizing it as conduct. Florida may be exactly right about the nature of the ideas it targets. Or it may not. Either way, the merits of these views will be decided in the clanging marketplace of ideas rather than a codebook or a courtroom. I. A. Florida’s law, the Individual Freedom Act, bans certain mandatory workplace trainings.1 Fla. Stat. § 760.10(8)(a). The Act says employers cannot subject “any individual, as a condition of employment,” to “training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels” a certain set of beliefs. Id. It goes on to list the rejected ideas, all of which relate to race, color, sex, or national origin: 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

1 The Act is also known as the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which stands for “Stop

the Wrongs to our Kids and Employees.” News Release, Florida O