Updated: Oct. 20, 2026 at 2:p.m. (Note: this article was updated to court events occurring throughout the day)
The First District Court of Appeal has refused to ban publication of the Hope Florida grand jury report.
The request came from the officials the report names, Attorney General James Uthmeier among them, who had already won an order erasing it. On Oct. 16 they asked the same court to go further and prohibit what they called the “illegal publication” of the expunged report. The State of Florida joined them. The court said no, the same day.
The denial is one of a series of orders the First District has issued since it released its opinion on Oct. 7. Together they show a court that ordered the report expunged but has not been willing to go further, and that is now looking hard at how the report got out, including at the people who asked it to keep the report secret.
That night, at 11:36 p.m., the Republican Party of Florida filed a lawsuit in Highlands County asking a circuit judge for what the appeals court had just declined to give: an order barring broadcast of the report’s findings, backed by the threat of criminal prosecution.
Earlier today, the Highlands County judge assigned to the case, Circuit Judge Heather Beato, issued an order of recusal. Beato’s order stated “in the interest of assurance to the parties of complete impartiality that an Order of Recusal should be entered herein.” The case has been reassigned to Circuit Judge Peter Estrada, who was appointed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005.
Just after noon today, Judge Peter Estrada, the new judge assigned to replace Beato, entered an order denying the ex parte motion for temporary injunction to ban the Hope Florida ads. “The Court should and does deny the Plaintiff’s ex parte nature of its requested relief,” the order reads. The Court directed plaintiffs to serve the defendants and coordinate a hearing in the case.
What the court was asked to do
The emergency motion was filed in the appeal, case 1D2026-2435, by the officials and organizations named in the report who had cross-appealed to win full expungement. Attorney General James Uthmeier is among them. The docket lists the filing as an “Emergency Motion to Prohibit Illegal Publication of Expunged Presentment.” The State filed a notice of joinder the same day.
The motion and the order denying it are not public. The docket shows only the titles and the result: “Order denying the emergency motion to prohibit illegal publication.” The court gave no reasons on the docket.
Whatever the reasoning, the effect is clear. The court that held the report “unlawful” and ordered it erased was asked to stop people from repeating what it said, and it refused.
The Republican Party’s complaint, filed six hours later, does not mention the denial. It tells the Highlands County court that the First District’s opinion makes any broadcast of the report’s “content, gist, or import” a first-degree misdemeanor under section 905.27, and it asks for an injunction without a hearing. The party’s lawyer at Shutts & Bowen had sent the same theory to television stations that morning, with copies to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and 11 state attorneys.
Two leak investigations, pointing in two directions
On Oct. 9, the three-judge panel that issued the August writ ordered State Attorney Jack Campbell to show cause why a special master should not be appointed to investigate how the unredacted report reached CBS Miami reporter Jim DeFede on Aug. 26, one day after the court’s marshal personally served Campbell with the writ. The order also asked why Campbell should not be sanctioned for an email that same day in which he suggested a court clerk was responsible, and why he should not be referred to The Florida Bar.
The order quoted the email. “I have no idea where it came from other than I am guessing the record got sent from our clerk to the DCA in past couple of days,” Campbell wrote to the lawyers for the officials. “I am going to still stonewall the press though they are blowing me up now.”
The clerk did not send the unredacted report to the appeals court until Sept. 9, two weeks after the publication.
Campbell responded on Oct. 13 with a filing and two appendices totaling 263 pages, all marked “under seal.” On Oct. 16 the court ordered him to say within 10 days exactly which parts are confidential and why. Until he does, the clerk will keep the response sealed.
Then, in a second order the same day, the court turned to the other side. It ordered the officials who had petitioned for secrecy to file, within 10 days, “a detailed explanation of any information they are aware of concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the unredacted presentment to the media or any other persons.” It also ordered them to show cause why a special master should not investigate the leak of the redacted report to the media and whether the court’s stay or writ was violated.
That is a different leak. Someone obtained the redacted version, and the court wants to know whether it came from the side fighting to keep everything sealed.
The redacted report surfaced two days after the unredacted one. On Aug. 28, Florida’s Voice reported that “a source close to Gov. Ron DeSantis” had told it a judge “redacted more than 90% of the leaked Hope Florida grand jury report as improper under the law.” The source accused Democrats of leaking the unredacted version “to keep the controversy alive.” The redacted version was not public. Florida’s Voice is an online news outlet that has given the DeSantis administration an unfiltered and flattering platform for his message.
The circuit court’s July 29 order required the parties to keep it confidential pending appeal, and the First District had stayed the notice orders and enjoined disclosure. Whoever gave Florida’s Voice the redacted report, or the figures from it, was on the side of the case that had asked the courts to keep it sealed. The court’s Oct. 16 order to the petitioners asks them to explain what they know.
Opening the files
On Oct. 19 and 20, the court issued matching orders in both cases. Within five days, the parties must show cause why “the briefs, record on appeal, notices, motions, and other filings” should not be given “unrestricted status on the docket and made available for public viewing.” Any party that wants something kept confidential must identify the exact passage and cite the law that makes it so.
Nearly everything in both cases has been hidden since August. If the orders hold, most of it will be public within weeks.
The orders also undercut the premise of the Highlands County suit. The Republican Party’s theory is that the report’s contents are so secret that repeating them is a crime. The court that expunged the report is preparing to publish the briefs that quote it.
What the dockets show about who was in the room
The dockets confirm what the Trident reported last week. In the writ case, the only respondent is Campbell. In the appeal, the parties are Campbell, who dismissed his own appeal on Sept. 8, the officials who cross-appealed, and the State, represented by a specially appointed acting attorney general. The Florida Center for Government Accountability, which the circuit court allowed to intervene and which held three orders requiring that it be told of any appeal, appears on neither docket.
Campbell filed his notice of appeal on Aug. 12. The officials petitioned to block notice to the Center the same day, under Rule 9.100(d), a provision written to give the press fast review when a court shuts it out. The court stayed the notice orders on Aug. 13, one day before Campbell’s deadline to tell the Center would have run.
What comes next
The parties’ responses on unsealing are due about Oct. 25, and Campbell’s confidentiality notice and the officials’ leak explanations are due Oct. 26. The Highlands County case remains pending.
Michael Barfield is an award-winning investigative reporter who helps strengthen transparency and accountability across Florida. He assists reporters and the public with public records questions and requests, and he oversees and supports the organization’s litigation to enforce open government. He’s a frequent lecturer on Florida’s Public Records Act and Sunshine Law, serves on the governance committee of Investigative Reporters & Editors, and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. Barfield is a former President of the ACLU of Florida, a life member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and has twice been named by Sarasota Magazine as one of the most influential people in Sarasota. He lives in Sarasota with his wife, Iru.
