Members of a Florida motorcycle club sued sheriff’s officials after an official obtained and distributed their driver’s-license photographs while lobbying against proposed open-carry legislation. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act and alternatively found qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the Act’s government-function exception covered the officials’ use of the photographs because the sheriff’s office was authorized to lobby and the challenged activity occurred in carrying out that governmental function. The plaintiffs had not shown that the disclosure served an impermissible purpose. The court also held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law would have warned a reasonable official that this use of the photographs violated the Act. A special concurrence agreed that summary judgment was proper because the law was not clearly established, while separately addressing the scope of the statutory exception.