Bruner v. State Commission on Ethics

District Court of Appeal of Florida
384 So. 2d 1339 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state legislature cannot enact a statute that authorizes the judiciary to stay or otherwise impinge upon a power, such as the authority to suspend public officials, that is explicitly granted to the executive branch by the state constitution.

Facts:

Raymond R. Bruner was the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Florida.
The State of Florida Commission on Ethics investigated Bruner's conduct.
The Commission found that Bruner violated § 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by sexually harassing and attempting to secure sexual favors from employees and employment applicants.
Based on these findings, the Commission issued a final order recommending that the Governor of Florida suspend Bruner from office.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Florida Commission on Ethics issued a final order recommending the Governor suspend Raymond R. Bruner from office.
Bruner (appellant) appealed the Commission's order to the District Court of Appeal.
Bruner filed a motion with the appellate court for a supersedeas order to stay the Governor's power to suspend him pending the appeal's disposition.
On June 27, 1980, the District Court of Appeal granted Bruner's motion for a stay.
On the same day, the Governor issued an executive order suspending Bruner from office.
Bruner filed a motion with the appellate court to set aside the Governor's executive order.
The Commission (appellee) filed a motion to vacate the court's supersedeas order.
The appellate court issued a show cause order directing the parties to argue the constitutionality of the statute authorizing the stay and whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state statute authorizing a court to enter a supersedeas order staying the Governor's power to suspend a public official violate the Florida Constitution by unconstitutionally impinging upon a power exclusively granted to the executive branch?

Opinions:

Majority - McCord, Judge

Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The Florida Constitution, in Article IV, Section 7, explicitly grants the Governor the power to suspend county officers. This executive power is independent and cannot be impinged upon by a statute passed by the legislature. The statute in question, § 112.3241, which purports to give the court authority to stay the Governor's exercise of this power, collides directly with the Governor's constitutional authority. Even a temporary postponement of this power constitutes an unconstitutional impingement. Furthermore, because the Governor has already exercised his constitutional authority and suspended the appellant, the appeal of the Commission's recommendation is now moot. The forum for determining the appellant's reinstatement now shifts from the court to the Governor and the Senate.

Analysis:

This case serves as a straightforward application of the separation of powers doctrine, reinforcing that a power explicitly granted to one branch of government by the constitution cannot be limited by another branch acting under statutory authority. The decision clarifies that even a temporary judicial 'stay' constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the executive's constitutional prerogatives. It solidifies the Governor's suspension power as independent and not contingent on the completion of judicial review of advisory recommendations from bodies like the Commission on Ethics. Consequently, it limits the avenues for a public official to delay or prevent a constitutionally authorized suspension.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bruner v. State Commission on Ethics (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"