Cities End Challenge to Police Budgets Law
The Legislature this spring passed a measure that, in part, takes away the authority of the governor and Cabinet to make the decisions about police budgets.
June 12, 2023 at 11:54 AM
4 minute read
Six cities are dropping a constitutional challenge to a 2021 Florida law aimed at shielding police departments from budget cuts, after the Legislature revamped the law this spring.
The police-spending issue was included in a controversial law that passed after widespread protests in 2020 across the nation. Those protests were in response to the death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer who kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes.
The law enhanced penalties and created new crimes for protests that turn violent. But it also created a process in which state attorneys and certain local elected officials could appeal decisions by municipalities to reduce funding for police departments.
Under the law, such appeals would be handled by the state Administration Commission, which is made up of Gov. Ron DeSantis and members of the Florida Cabinet.
The cities of Gainesville, Lauderhill, Miramar, North Miami Beach, Tallahassee, and Wilton Manors challenged the constitutionality of the budget provision in the law. In part, the cities argued that it violated home-rule powers and improperly delegated local budgeting authority to the governor and Cabinet.
Leon County Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh last year rejected the state's request to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the case "goes to the heart" of the division of power between elected officials at different levels of government.
The Legislature this spring passed a measure that, in part, takes away the authority of the governor and Cabinet to make the decisions about police budgets. Passage of the bill prompted Marsh to put the lawsuit on hold. DeSantis signed the bill (SB 1595) on May 25.
Attorneys who have represented the cities and local officials in the litigation hailed lawmakers' reversal.
"This is an important victory for local movement-building in Florida," Jonathan Miller, chief program officer at Public Rights Project, said in a statement Thursday announcing the plaintiffs were planning to drop the lawsuit.
Miller, who was the lead counsel for plaintiffs, added, "As this case demonstrates, when cities stand up against abuses of power and fight to protect the rights of their residents, they can win."
The cities also were represented by the Community Justice Project, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Jenner & Block firm.
Under the new law, appeals about police budgets would be handled by the state Division of Administrative Hearings. Administrative law judges would hold hearings and consider a number of factors, including the grounds for local governments to reduce police budgets; police budgets in communities of comparable size; police staffing needs; and revenue changes.
The bill also would only allow challenges to budget reductions of more than 5%, a limitation that was not included in the 2021 law. Administrative law judges would issue orders that could be appealed to a state appellate court.
The revision was included in a broader bill that dealt with the duties of county sheriffs and received relatively little attention during this year's legislative session.
"I am proud to have been a part of this courageous coalition standing up to the governor," Miramar Mayor Wayne Messam said in a statement. "Local governments are crucial to building movements toward justice. We must be able to use all available tools to do so, including through our budgets. The city of Miramar is celebrating this victory in the name of home rule control."
Civil rights groups also launched federal-court challenges to parts of the 2021 law that enhanced penalties and created new crimes in protests that turn violent.
In September 2021, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled that protest-related parts of the law were unconstitutionally "vague and overbroad" and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement.
The state appealed the decision, but the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in January turned to the Florida Supreme Court for help. A three-judge panel of the appeals court sought an opinion from the Florida court because of what it called a "novel" issue: how to determine the meaning of the word "riot" in the law.
The Florida court has not made a decision, and Walker's injunction remains in effect.
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
Law Firms Mentioned
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