Styrofoam is Back: Florida Appellate Court Strikes Down Coral Gables' Ban, Prohibits Similar Laws
The Third District Court of Appeal Wednesday ruled that statewide legislation preempted the city's law prohibiting vendors from selling or using plastic foam containers.
August 14, 2019 at 04:32 PM
5 minute read
A South Florida appellate court has delivered a major blow to municipalities looking to enact what they say are eco-friendly rules and regulations against nonbiodegradable waste.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal on Wednesday ruled against Coral Gables' law prohibiting the use of food-related polystyrene containers, widely branded as Styrofoam.
The appellate panel's opinion, which reversed and remanded a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judgment favoring the city, held that Florida statutes superseded the rule.
"The trial court, in finding three state statutes unconstitutional, relied exclusively on the presumption that ordinances are valid, but failed to consider the strong, competing presumption that 'statutes come clothed with a presumption of constitutionality and must be construed whenever possible to effect a constitutional outcome," the opinion said.
The matter came before the Third DCA following an appeal from business advocacy group the Florida Retail Federation, and its member, Coral Gables-based business Super Progreso.
The litigation began in July 2016, about four months after Coral Gables banned the sale and use of plastic foam. Super Progreso and the Florida Retail Federation challenged the legality of that ordinance, filing a complaint against the city in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.
Their lawsuit sought an injunction and declaratory relief against Coral Gables for violating state laws, which forbid local governments from implementing "any rule regulation, or ordinance regarding use, disposition, sale, prohibition, restriction, or tax of . . . auxiliary containers, wrappings or disposable plastic bags."
The complaint also cited a state law prohibiting municipalities from overseeing the "regulation of the use or sale of polystyrene products," such as Styrofoam.
After the trial court ruled in the city's favor, the plaintiffs appealed in March 2017.
Wednesday's appellate opinion specified the same Florida statutes as the initial complaint but disagrees with the lower court's determination that the state statutes were unconstitutional and "lack the necessary standards and guidelines for implementation, rendering them unconstitutionally vague."
Instead, the Third DCA held the laws fail to transfer legislative authority, and do not violate Florida Constitution's nondelegation doctrine.
|Read the opinion:
The appellate court also rebuffed Coral Gables' argument that Florida laws concerning disposable containers violated Miami-Dade County's home-rule amendment.
"It is well-established that the Home Rule Amendment must be strictly construed to maintain the supremacy of general laws," the opinion said. "Although [Coral Gables] may have been the first municipality to regulate polystyrene after Jan. 1, 2016, [Florida law] does not impermissibly single out the city or Miami-Dade County."
The ruling concluded that the state laws are unambiguous "and by their plain language preempt the city's ordinance regulating 'polystyrene containers.'"
Dexter Lehtinen and Claudio Riedi of Miami law firm Lehtinen Schultz served as Florida Retail Federation's attorneys during the litigation. Riedi deferred to his client when asked to comment on the ruling.
Scott Shalley, Florida Retail Federation's president and CEO, praised the Third DCA's conclusion.
"We commend the court as this decision reinforces the legislature's ability and authority to govern these issues on a statewide basis," Shalley said.
He added that the order helps ensure Florida remains business-friendly "by avoiding a patchwork of regulations by the more than 400 local governments."
"Our retailers spend millions of dollars every year on identifying ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint," Shalley said. "We will continue to focus on solutions that are based on science and the importance of responsible consumer education and behavior."
Shalley also thanked Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody's office for its assistance in representing the organization. Kylie Mason, spokesperson for the attorney general, declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
Coral Gables City Attorney Miriam Ramos expressed dismay over the ruling, which she says now renders all local regulations governing plastic bags, plastic foam containers and other single-use plastics in violation of Florida law.
"Our legal team is currently reviewing the court's order in depth and developing our recommendations for the City Commission's consideration," she said. "The city remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting our environment, which includes eliminating the use of harmful items like polystyrene and plastic bags. The city also remains wholly committed to defending home rule and local control."
Others litigators who had filed amicus briefs on Coral Gables' behalf also expressed frustration. Among them: Bonnie Malloy, a staff attorney with the Florida branch of environmental law group Earthjustice, and Miami Beach City Attorney Raul Aguila, who both said the decision was a major setback for environmental laws.
Aguila said the opinion marked a sad day for environmentalists and "other local, coastal municipalities, like Surfside and Bal Harbour, which passed legislation banning plastic bags within their jurisdictions, based on the lower court's opinion regarding Coral Gables' ordinance.
"Now that that opinion has been reversed, these cities may have no choice but to repeal their legislation or face the potential of legal challenges to those laws," Aguila said. The appellate order "highlights the continuing negative impact and ongoing challenges that progressive local governments in Florida continue to face."
In the meantime, Ramos said she hopes Coral Gables vendors will stick with any changes they'd made, despite of the city's now-toothless rule.
"I hope that we've effectuated change," she said. "If you've found a more sustainable alternative, we hope that you continue to use that and not go back to using something we know for a fact is very harmful to the environment."
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
- 1Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
- 2SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Trump's Inauguration Day
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About,' Says Jennifer A. Gniady of Stradley Ronon
- 4Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
- 5St. Ivo: Patron Saint of Lawyers
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