Florida Supreme Court Sides With Gov. DeSantis in Suspension Order Lawsuit
The high court declined a petition for writ of quo warranto by ousted official Mary Beth Jackson on Tuesday. DeSantis removed Jackson from her position as Okaloosa County school superintendent through an executive order issued Jan. 11.
April 16, 2019 at 05:50 PM
4 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court Tuesday ruled Gov. Ron DeSantis did not abuse his gubernatorial powers by removing former Okaloosa County School Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson from office.
The high court entered an order denying Jackson's petition for writ of quo warranto. Jackson, who was dismissed from her elected position by executive order on Jan. 11, had argued that DeSantis' suspension was an overreach of powers granted to him by the Florida Constitution.
The decision comes as another ousted official, former Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, is suing DeSantis over his removal from public office via executive order.
DeSantis had justified Jackson's removal by citing conduct that allegedly occurred under her watch during her first term in office, including charges of “child abuse/neglect by instructional personnel” and “numerous criminal charges of failing to report suspected child abuse by instructional personnel and administrators,” according to the governor's order. But Jackson had argued she could only be removed from office for alleged failures that occurred during her current term, not for alleged infractions before her re-election in November 2016.
George Levesque, a shareholder with GrayRobinson's Tallahassee office, represented Jackson. He argued in the petition that the Florida Supreme Court “has long held that the governor's authority to suspend an officer under the Florida Constitution is limited to acts occurring during the current term of office of the suspended officer.” The attorney characterized DeSantis' order as “an invalid exercise of authority” and contended “Jackson is entitled to reinstatement as superintendent of schools of Okaloosa County.”
But the high court found that Jackson's appeal was “based on a faulty premise.”
“Read fairly and in its entirety, the suspension order alleges acts and omissions occurring during Jackson's current term, and bases Jackson's suspension on her alleged ongoing mismanagement of the school district,” the order said.
The high court also cited DeSantis' mention in the executive order of two Okaloosa County grand jury reports, in February and June 2018, on Jackson's conduct.
“The text of the suspension order leaves no doubt that, in the governor's view, those failures continued up to the time of Jackson's suspension in January 2019,” the court found.
Because DeSantis' suspension order concerned purported failures by Jackson during her most recent term, the high court found ”there is no need for us to address the constitutional validity of a hypothetical suspension order alleging facts that relate exclusively to a suspended official's earlier term in office.”
A concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Lagoa held Article IV, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, which grants the governor suspension power, “doesn't outline a temporal limitation on the executive's suspension power such that the constitutionally enumerated grounds resulting in suspension must occur during the suspended officer's current term of office.”
Read the Florida Supreme Court's order:
The governor celebrated the high court's decision.
“I am pleased that @FLCourts rejected Mary Beth Jackson's challenge to my authority to suspend her as Okaloosa County Superintendent for failing to protect students,” his official account tweeted. “My administration will not tolerate negligence nor incompetence from any government official, especially those charged with the sacred duty of protecting our children.”
Levesque did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Jackson's petition is not the only litigation to reach the Florida Supreme Court concerning DeSantis' suspensions.
A lawsuit by Broward's former sheriff, Israel, against the governor is also currently before the high court.
In a statement, Israel's attorney, Benedict “Ben” Kuehne, said the court's findings do not impact his client's claims against DeSantis.
“Sheriff Israel interprets the Supreme Court's ruling today as requiring strict adherence to the constitutional provision,” Kuehne said. “Unlike Superintendent Jackson's appeal, Sheriff Israel has identified the failure on the part of the governor's suspension order to identify a single mandatory duty that Sheriff Israel neglected or incompetently administered. Without a showing of a violation of a mandatory duty, the strict text of the Florida Constitution does not validate the sheriff's suspension.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250