Florida Supreme Court Upholds Gov. DeSantis' Removal of Ex-Broward Sheriff Scott Israel
The high court held the Florida governor's suspension of former Broward Sheriff Scott Israel satisfied the requirements set by the Florida Constitution for the removal of public officials by executive order. Gov. Ron DeSantis removed Israel from office over law enforcement's handling of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
April 23, 2019 at 04:29 PM
3 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court has sided with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his legal battle with former Broward Sheriff Scott Israel.
The high court issued a ruling Tuesday affirming the constitutionality of DeSantis' Jan. 11 executive order suspending Israel from his position as Broward County Sheriff.
A lawsuit filed by the ousted law enforcement officer alleged the order, which cited Israel's “neglect of duty and incompetence” in his handling of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018 in Parkland, was “an affront to the Florida Constitution” and failed to identify a violation of mandatory duty that would justify his removal from office.
The opinion authored by Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Lagoa held DeSantis' executive order met the requirements established in the Florida Constitution for the suspension of public officials.
“A review of Executive Order 19-14 shows that it articulates factual allegations that bear a reasonable relation to the grounds of neglect of duty and incompetence as those terms are understood in their usual and ordinary meaning,” Lagoa wrote.
The order also cited its recent ruling concerning another suspended public official, former Okaloosa County School Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson, and her own lawsuit against DeSantis. In doing so, the court reiterated it has a “limited role in reviewing the exercise of the suspension power, which the Constitution commits to the governor and which inherently involves 'judgment and discretion.' ”
“ Assuming that the office of the suspended officer falls under one of the constitutionally enumerated categories and the governor has filed the executive order of suspension with the custodian of records, the plain language of the Constitution excludes the judiciary from involving itself in the suspension and removal process, save for a limited exception,” the opinion said.
Read the Florida Supreme Court's order:
Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga concurred in result only.
“I write to emphasize that our review of these matters is not pro forma,” the former chief justice wrote. “Indeed, executive orders suspending officials … must allege specific, detailed facts which support and allow for meaningful review by the Senate. This requirement, in my view, is of paramount importance when the official in question was duly elected by the voters.”
“The allegations must, however, identify the specific instances of alleged misconduct with sufficient detail to facilitate meaningful review by the Senate, by this court when applicable, and to allow the official to mount a defense,” Labarga added. “An executive order which presents only general or conclusory allegations will not suffice. This is not a demanding standard, but it is nonetheless a substantive requirement imposed by the Florida Constitution, and this court is obligated to vacate any suspension which does not satisfy it.”
The Florida Supreme Court's order upholds the initial dismissal of Israel's lawsuit by Broward Circuit Judge David Haimes.
Requests for comment from Israel's attorney, Benedict “Ben” Kuehne, and the governor's office were not returned by press time.
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 AllSecond 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
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
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