Art Acevedo was hired to reform Miami’s troubled police department, but after clashes with the city commission, he was fired in six months.
MIAMI (CN) – Miami city officials asserted before an 11th Circuit panel Thursday that the firing of Miami’s former police chief did not 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 out about a matter of public concern when he sent an internal memo to the mayor, city manager and two law enforcement agencies complaining about the city’s three police commissioners interfering with his duties.
The memo — which Acevedo alleges in his retaliation lawsuit 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 and foremost, whistleblowing is a situation where someone reports outside the chain of command, not an internal memo to their superiors,” said Ronzetti of the Miami-based firm Tucker Ronzetti.
The Miami City Commission voted to fire Acevedo in 2021 after Police Chief severed heads with commissioners and City Manager Arthur Noriega over personnel changes and comments that described city officials as the “Cuban Mafia.” Acevedo lasted just six months in the role.
He then unsuspecting 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 criticized officials for using Miami Police Department to pursue reprisals.
The defendants appealed after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Acevedo spoke as a citizen on a matter of public interest and refused to quit appeal, further deciding officials are not subject to qualified immunity.
Ronzetti said the memo and Acevedo’s other comments disrupted city operations.
“There was disunity to the extent that there was a real out and open battle between the commission and its police chief,” he said. “There is also part of the charge that he was damaging morale.”
“The law says that the government body should not expect disruption,” Ronzetti added.
But Acevedo insisted the shooting violated the First Amendment.
“He was under pressure to arm the Miami police department,” said Heaven Chee, of the Houston-based firm Leon Cosgrove Jimenez, who represents Acevedo. “There is an absolute absence of any allegation that would weigh in favor of the government.”
U.S. District Judge Nancy Abudu, a Joe Biden appointee, asked Chee whether Acevedo’s memo to his superiors undermines his First Amendment claims.
“The fact that the whistleblower’s memo was forwarded to the FBI and the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office is part and parcel of his credit,” Chee said. “He was acting as a private citizen. He was going above and beyond what my friends on the bench call his ‘superiors.'”
Chief US District Court Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, asked Chee about potential disruptions caused by Acevedo’s conduct.
“Well, your honor at this stage, at the impeachment stage, there is an absence of any allegations that would give the city commissioners or the manager reason to believe that his whistleblowing speech would disrupt the harmony of the Miami police department,” Chee said.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Brasher, an appointee of Donald Trump, 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 for that is that OK, they admit they can’t discharge whistleblowers,” Brasher said. “But then they want to put a caveat on that and say, ‘But maybe there are some positions where it’s not clear that we might be able to fire them for whistleblowing.’
The panel did not say 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 filed by two businesses in the Little Havana neighborhood that accused the commissioner of directing police and code enforcement to raid the facilities. In 2025, the 11th Circuit upheld a $63.5 million verdict against Carollo. Diaz de la Portilla faced his own legal problems when the police arrested him on numerous charges of bribery and money laundering.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
