The lawsuit sought to stop the ads, which refer to a leaked grand jury report about the path of $10 million from a $67 million Medicaid settlement. The dispute unfolded less than two weeks before the 2026 midterm elections, including the race between Democratic Attorney General candidate Jose Javier Rodriguez and incumbent James Uthmeier.

Republicans argued that state law bars knowingly broadcasting the content or gist of grand jury testimony, and said the ads relied on a report that an appeals court had ordered expunged. The party’s attorneys said the lawsuit had accomplished its purpose after multiple state attorneys weighed in. In its dismissal notice, the party said it wanted to allow law enforcement work to proceed without distraction, noting that criminal investigations and charging decisions rest with officials, not the party.

A judge on Tuesday denied the Republicans’ request to immediately remove the ad without first hearing from the Democrats. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be brought again.

Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said the party viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to silence its speech and argued that the dispute had drawn more attention to unresolved questions about the money. She asked who authorized the transfer from the Medicaid settlement to a charity associated with the first lady, why $8.5 million later went to a political committee led by Uthmeier, and what happened to the Republican Party’s share. Those claims and questions were raised by the Democrats; the dismissal itself does not resolve them.

The grand jury report, finalized in January, said that in 2024 the $10 million was diverted from a settlement with Centene. The money went first to the Hope Florida Foundation, then to two nonprofits, and ultimately to a political committee headed by Uthmeier, who was then Gov. Ron DeSantis’ chief of staff. The committee opposed ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana and establish a constitutional right to abortion; both measures failed.

The report described the diversion as misappropriation, but no one could be indicted in the case. Because no indictment was issued, state law allowed the report to be sealed. People named in it sought to prevent its release, and a trial court allowed some redacted material to become public. The First District Court of Appeal ruled on Aug. 25 that the grand jury presentment should be expunged, though that ruling was initially not public. The unredacted report was published within a day.