Miami officials try to dodge fired police chief's retaliation suit

MIAMI (CN) —  Miami city officials maintained to an 11th Circuit panel on Thursday that their firing of Miami’s former police chief didn’t violate his free speech rights.

Thomas Ronzetti, representing three city commissioners who voted to fire Hubert “Art” Acevedo, told the three-judge panel that Acevedo did not act as a private citizen speaking on a matter of public concern when he sent an internal memorandum to the mayor, the city manager and two law enforcement agencies complaining about interference by three city commissioners in his duties as police chief.

The memo — which Acevedo claims in his retaliation suit was protected whistleblower activity — was sent in his official role as police chief, Ronzetti argued, which did not afford him the same First Amendment protections.

“First of all, whistleblowing is a situation when someone reports outside of the chain of command, not an internal memorandum to their superiors,” said Ronzetti of the Miami-based firm Tucker Ronzetti.

The Miami City Commission voted to fire Acevedo in 2021 after the police chief butted heads with commissioners and city manager Arthur Noriega over personnel changes and comments describing city officials as the “Cuban mafia." Acevedo only lasted six months in the role.

He then sued the city, Noriega and three city commissioners — Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Joe Carollo and Manolo Reyes — in Miami federal court for retaliation after he publicly lambasted the officials for using the Miami Police Department to pursue vendettas.

The defendants appealed after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Acevedo spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and refused to dismiss the complaint, further ruling the officials are not subject to qualified immunity.

Ronzetti said the memo and Acevedo’s other comments disrupted city operations.

“There was disruption to the extent there was an actual out-and-out battle between the commission and its chief of police,” he said. “There’s also part of the charge he was harming morale.”

“The law says that the governmental body doesn’t have to await disruption,” Ronzetti added.

But Acevedo insisted that the firing violated the First Amendment.

“He was being pressured to weaponize the Miami police department,” Heaven Chee, of the Houston-based firm Leon Cosgrove Jimenez and representing Acevedo, said. “There’s an absolute absence of any allegations that would weigh in favor of the government.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu, a Joe Biden appointee, asked Chee if Acevedo’s memo to his superiors undercuts his First Amendment claims.

“The fact that the whistleblower memorandum was forwarded to the FBI and the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office is part and parcel of his merits,” Chee said. “He was acting as a private citizen. He was going beyond what my friends across the bench call his ‘superiors.’”

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, asked Chee about possible disruptions caused by Acevedo’s conduct.

“Well, your honor at this stage, the dismissal stage, there is an absence of any allegations that would give the city commissioners or the manager any thought that they have reason to believe that his whistleblowing speech would upset the harmony of the Miami police department," Chee said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher, a Donald Trump appointee, suggested the former police chief was treated differently by city officials than if a standard police officer spoke out.

“And it seems like their argument on this is that okay, they accept they can’t fire whistleblowers,” Brasher said. “But then they want to do a caveat to that and say, ‘But maybe there are certain positions where it’s not clear we might be able to fire them for whistleblowing.’”

The panel did not indicate when it might rule.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez recruited Acevedo from the Houston Police Department, calling him the Michael Jordan and Tom Brady of police chiefs. But Acevedo quickly clashed with some city commissioners. The police chief accused Carollo and Diaz de la Portilla of using their commissioner status to target businesses owned by rivals.

Carollo lost a 2023 lawsuit brought by two businesses in the Little Havana neighborhood that accused the commissioner of directing police and code enforcement to raid the establishments. In 2025, the 11th Circuit upheld a $63.5 million judgment against Carollo. Diaz de la Portilla faced legal problems of his own when police arrested him for multiple charges of bribery and money laundering.

Follow @alexbpickett