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:
Ousted Sheriff Scott Israel Asks Court to Weigh Governor's Power to Remove Him
Florida Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Scott Israel's Lawsuit Against Gov. DeSantis
Florida Supreme Court Sides With Gov. DeSantis in Suspension Order Lawsuit
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
© 2025 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 AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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