State Attorney Warren Takes Suspension Fight to Appeals Court
Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren in August, accusing him of "incompetence and willful defiance of his duties."
February 15, 2023 at 11:26 AM
4 minute read
Suspended Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren will ask an Atlanta-based appeals court to review a federal judge's ruling that cleared the twice-elected Democrat of wrongdoing but did not reinstate him to the job.
Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Warren in August, accusing him of "incompetence and willful defiance of his duties." Warren filed a lawsuit challenging the suspension, arguing that it was politically motivated and violated his speech rights.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle last month ruled that DeSantis' suspension violated the Florida Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, but the judge said he lacked the authority to reverse the governor's action.
Lawyers for Warren filed a notice Tuesday saying he intends to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As is common, the notice did not include details of the upcoming appeal.
In his Jan. 20 ruling, Hinkle found that DeSantis violated the First Amendment by considering the prosecutor's speech "on matters of public concern … as motivating factors in the decision to suspend him." But the judge said the governor also based the suspension on factors involving Warren's conduct — not speech. As a result, Hinkle ruled he could not overturn the suspension based on the First Amendment.
The judge also ruled that a federal court could not act on a violation of the Florida Constitution.
"The record includes not a hint of misconduct by Mr. Warren," Hinkle's 59-page ruling said.
DeSantis' Aug. 4 executive order suspending Warren pointed to a letter the prosecutor signed pledging to avoid enforcing a new law preventing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The governor also targeted a statement Warren joined condemning the criminalization of transgender people and gender-affirming care. In addition, DeSantis cited Warren policies that could limit prosecution of cases related to bicycle and pedestrian stops by police and certain low-level offenses.
But finding that Warren's office had not embraced such nonprosecution policies, Hinkle challenged DeSantis to resolve the issue.
"If the facts matter, the governor can simply rescind the suspension," Hinkle wrote. "If he does not do so, it will be doubly clear that the alleged non-prosecution policies were not the real motivation for the suspension."
Hinkle concluded that the governor and his aides targeted Warren because of the prosecutor's left-leaning approach.
"In short, the controlling motivations for the suspension were the interest in bringing down a reform prosecutor — a prosecutor whose performance did not match the governor's law-and-order agenda — and the political benefit that would result. The actual facts — whether Mr. Warren actually had any blanket non-prosecution policies — did not matter. All that was needed was a pretext to justify the suspension under the Florida Constitution," Hinkle wrote.
Warren, pointing to Hinkle's conclusions, asked DeSantis for reinstatement so he can serve the nearly two years remaining in his term.
"Duty requires you to accept the court's findings that the executive order is illegal, even if that finding is perhaps unwelcome," Warren wrote to the governor on Jan. 25.
But DeSantis repeatedly has defended his decision.
In response to Warren's request for reinstatement, DeSantis' press secretary Bryan Griffin said the state attorney's fate is in the hands of the Florida Senate, which has the authority to remove suspended officials from office. The Senate has put consideration of Warren's suspension on hold until the legal wrangling is resolved.
"We do not agree with the court's dicta, which are merely opinions, and need not address them since the court ultimately determined it lacked jurisdiction and thus ruled in favor of the governor," Griffin said.
On a recent podcast, Warren said he felt vindicated by Hinkle's ruling.
"The court's findings are crystal clear: I did my job extremely well and I did nothing wrong. The governor's allegations against me are totally false and … as we've said from the beginning, this suspension broke the law. It violated both the United States and Florida Constitutions," he said.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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