Odebrecht Construction, Inc. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation
715 F.3d 1268
11th Cir.2013Background
- Odebrecht Construction, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction against Florida's Cuba Amendment, seeking to bar enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 287.135(2).
- The Cuba Amendment prohibits a company engaged in Cuba-related business from bidding on Florida public contracts of $1 million or more, defining “company” broadly to include affiliates.
- Odebrecht never did business in Cuba, but distant affiliates engaged in Cuba-related work, potentially triggering the Amendment.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding substantial likelihood of success on the Supremacy Clause/Conflict Preemption theory.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the Cuba Amendment preempts Florida law under conflict preemption, and that irreparable harm and equities support injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Cuba Amendment is preempted by federal law | Odebrecht argues conflict preemption via Supremacy Clause | FDOT contends no preemption, state sovereignty prevails | Yes; Cuba Amendment preempted by federal Cuban sanctions regime |
| Whether Odebrecht shows irreparable harm and favorable equities | Loss of bid opportunities and revenues constitutes irreparable harm | State interest in enforcing law outweighs harms to Odebrecht | Yes; irreparable harm and public interest support injunction |
| Whether the state spending power avoids preemption defenses | Spending power cannot override federal foreign-policy aims | Spending power allows Florida to regulate state contracting | No; spending power cannot defeat supremacy of federal sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (U.S. 2000) (conflict preemption governs; state law obstructs federal sanctions policy)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (S. Ct. 2012) (Supremacy Clause; federal law preempts conflicting state actions)
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1936) (presidential foreign affairs power broad and supreme)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1952) (presidential power limits in foreign affairs; historical context for preemption analysis)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1941) (field preemption and broad federal regulatory scheme in immigration/foreign affairs)