Let 'er Rip

By John R. Byrne

Hollywood has come to the SDFLA. Or at least a case involving Hollywood has.

Did you see Netflix’s The Rip? If not, I can’t blame you. It was one of those direct-to-Netflix movies. But it had real star power. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon reunite on screen as members of a Miami narcotics tactical unit that discovers millions in cash inside a stash house. Netflix describes it this way: “Trust frays when a team of Miami cops discovers millions in cash inside a run-down stash house, calling everyone — and everything — into question.”

The movie opens by saying it was “inspired by true events.” According to a new complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida, the true event was a June 29, 2016 Miami-Dade narcotics investigation that led to the seizure of more than $21 million in currency from a suspected marijuana trafficker’s home in Miami Lakes.

The officers who say they supervised and led that real investigation are not happy with the movie or what it allegedly implies about them. Last week, they sued the production companies behind the film, including Artists Equity, LLC, which was founded by Affleck and Damon.

The complaint alleges that, although the film uses fictional names, it copied highly specific details from the real seizure (Miami-Dade narcotics officers, the Miami Lakes/Hialeah setting, cash hidden in orange buckets inside walls, a cash-sniffing dog, a TEC-9). It then “Holly-fied” the rest, presenting a story about corruption, theft, cartel communications, arson, and murder. As the complaint puts it, third parties began asking the plaintiffs “which character they were and how many buckets they kept.”

You can read the complaint, which is getting national media coverage, here. The case is Smith v. Falco Pictures, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-23213, in the Southern District of Florida. It’s in front of Chief Judge Altonaga.

As a postscript, Affleck apparently plays a character named “J.D. Byrne.” No comment.

Judge Lenore Nesbitt

 By John R. Byrne

We probably should have featured Judge Nesbitt's portrait back in March when it was Women's History Month--but better late than never. 

Judge Nesbitt was certainly a trailblazer. A few milestones worth noting:

She was the first woman appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of Florida.

She graduated first in her class at University of Miami law school in 1957, where she was the only woman in the class. 

And yet, when she applied to law firms after graduation, she was only offered a secretarial job. She pressed on, practicing law with her husband, Joseph Nesbitt, before becoming a state trial court judge in 1975 and then a federal judge in 1983.

FBA write up below:

Judge Lenore Nesbitt was nominated to the district court in 1983 by President Reagan. Judge Nesbitt graduated first in her class at the University of Miami School of Law in 1957. While on the state bench, Judge Nesbitt presided over the trial of the police officers charged with the beating death of Arthur McDuffie and coverup of the same. She moved the trial to Tampa, due to the volatile atmosphere in Miami, which Judge Nesbitt described as a “time bomb”; the acquittal of the officers nonetheless sparked protests and riots through our city. Described by Judge Davis as the “true first lady of the court,” Judge Nesbitt was the first female judge appointed to the bench in this district. She served on the bench until 2001. 

By John R. Byrne

Happy Friday. Some positive news to end the week. 

Last night, I attended an awards ceremony at Holland & Knight. This time, the awards were not being handed out to lawyers or judges. The room was filled with middle school kids, ages 12-14. 

The event was part of the "Do the Write Thing" violence prevention program, which invites middle school students to write essays, poems, songs, or stories about the impact of violence on their lives and to offer solutions for reducing it. 

During the ceremony,  Miami-Dade County Public Defender Carlos Martinez talked about the positive impact the program has had on the community and on himself personally (Martinez volunteers to review the submissions). 

Kudos to Holland & Knight, and especially to attorney Eduardo A. Ramos. Ramos has run the program in Miami since 2010, a clear labor of love and service to our community. 

And, yes, I had a good reason to be there. My daughter, Vera, was one of the finalists! Alas, she didn’t win, so there’s no free trip to Washington D.C. in my future. But I could not have been prouder. 

                                             Eduardo A. Ramos and Carlos Martinez

News & Notes

1.  On Tuesday, the court had its Jewish American History Month presentation at the courthouse.  Judge Leibowitz presided over an interesting panel and his family Norman and Irman Braman were honored.

2.  While we are on Jewish American History Month, Judge Roy Altman's book Israel on Trial is #12 on the New York Times best seller list.

3.  Switching gears, the Haitian murder jury is deliberating.  Day #2 starts today.

4.  Lots of immigration battles occurring now in our courts.  The 11th Circuit had this 2-1 opinion yesterday covering 110 pages of debate between Judges Marcus and Rosenbaum on one side, and Judge Lagoa on the other.  Marcus starts this way:

The question we face today is whether unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings. For nearly thirty years, the answer to that question was, for most aliens, “yes.” Last year, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) took a different view. It now maintains that these aliens must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). We are called on to decide if the Government’s new reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is correct. Hundreds of district courts and four other circuits have already weighed in, reaching well-reasoned yet distinctly contrary conclusions. See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). This is the first time our Court has addressed the question. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioners -- Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez and Ismael Cerro Perez -- were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Each challenged his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 28 U.S.C.). On review of Petitioners’ habeas claims, the district court held that the discretionary detention provisions found in § 1226 governed their detention instead, rendering each of them eligible for bond. The Government appeals that decision. It insists that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioners -- as aliens present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted -- are “applicants for admission,” and so they must be detained without the possibility of bond unless they can establish clearly and beyond a doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. We are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone “lawful entry,” when he was detained following a traffic stop. The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that nobond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here. Finally, we reject the Government’s claim that even if it has misread the INA, Petitioners are now “seeking admission” because they did not voluntarily self-deport after the initiation of removal proceedings. We do not hold that Congress is without the power to authorize the detention of unadmitted aliens who are simply present in the country. That question is not before us. We hold only that Congress has not done so under the provisions found in the INA. Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us. We affirm the grant of habeas relief in each of these consolidated cases.

Judge Lagoa starts her dissent:

The majority concedes that “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission,” on their ordinary meaning, are “synonymous.” Maj. Op. 15–16. It then spends fifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). So do I. I respectfully dissent.  

Judge Edward B. Davis

Thank you to John and the Federal Bar Association for these wonderful portrait posts.  I really enjoy them. This week we have my old boss, Chief Judge Edward B. Davis.  I wanted to say a few words about this giant of a man – both literally and figuratively.  Judge Davis was the ideal judge.  I have so many great stories about him from my clerkship back in 1997. 

The first Friday of my clerkship, around 4:30pm, he asked me to get the other clerks and to pour everyone a drink.  He gestured to the cabinet.  We sat around and had scotch and discussed the first week.  Hard to describe the moment of sitting with your boss, drinking scotch, and discussing the law and cases. 

I remember the Frank Quintero trial and Frank walking out the door.  Judge Davis was happy for him.

I remember driving Judge Davis in his huge Cadillac to Fort Pierce and him telling me to “step on it, son.”

I remember watching Dick Gregorie try a case against Hugo Rodriguez and Hector Flores and watching Judge Davis turn his chair around and laugh when there was some pushing and pulling of a big poster board during opening.

But the thing that sticks with me the most is how he treated everyone – lawyers, litigants, defendants, staff – the same.  With humility and respect.  And humor.  The absolute best. 

After seeing how some of our judges treat lawyers and their clients these days, we really need more like Judge Davis.

***FBA Post Below***

Judge Davis was nominated to the district court by President Carter in 1979; he served on the court until 2000. In his youth, Judge Davis achieved athletic excellence in baseball, basketball, and football, earning the nickname “Boomer.” He signed with the Detroit Tigers out of high school, but his professional baseball career ended as a result of two years’ service in the U.S. Army, where he served in the Korean War. On the bench, Judge Davis was known for treating all who came before him with respect. Described as “selfless, compassionate, caring, bright and kind,” Judge Davis left a legacy of service and excellence. 

RIP James Lawrence King

 An icon. 98 years old and was on the federal bench since 1970... one of the longest serving ever.

From Judge Moreno:

Judge King died this morning. He was a great trial judge particularly in his first 4 decades of service. I tried several cases , including a murder trial in the early 80s and can attest how fair he was pre trial and even at sentencing. He was a great Chief Judge, got the buildings for Miami. Appointed by Nixon in 1970 he served as an active judge until he took senior status as soon as he was eligible to help the court get a replacement in those busier days. He was no

longer taking cases because of illness but served for 55 years. May he rest in peace. FAM

I will post other comments here as well.

Judge Williams Appoints Amici in Trump v. IRS

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Williams sua sponte appointed three friends of the court to opine as to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit President Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The parties had asked for 90 days to explore potential settlement and Judge Williams expressed concerns regarding whether the parties are truly adverse.

Judge Williams appointed heavyweights from outside the district to opine, namley: John Gleeson and David A. O’Neil of Debevoise and Plimpton; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger Tolles; and Faith E. Gay, Philippe Z. Selendy, and Corey Stoughton of Selendy Gay. Their memorandum is due on May 21. The order can be found here.

Well-Deserved Award Recipients (Past and Future)

By John R. Byrne

Sharing some news from the awards circuit. This past Tuesday, the American Jewish Committee presented its Learned Hand Award to attorney Bobby Gilbert. In addition to being an exceptional lawyer (and golfer), Bobby is a great person who has done so much for the Jewish community, both here in South Florida and abroad. Plus, he graduated from the best high school in the country, Miami Palmetto Senior High. Several of our state and federal judges were there to celebrate Bobby. 

Next up, on May 28, 2026, Transition will honor federal judge Raag Singhal and state judge Marisa Tinkler Mendez at its Heroes Reception. Transition does important work helping people leaving the prison system reenter our community. 

Well-deserved recipients and causes.