Bush v. Schiavo
885 So. 2d 321 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The separation of powers doctrine under the Florida Constitution prohibits the legislative and executive branches from retroactively overturning a final judicial order. Furthermore, the legislature may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch without providing ascertainable, minimal standards to guide the exercise of that authority.
Facts:
- In 1990, Theresa Schiavo suffered a cardiac arrest that left her in a persistent vegetative state, requiring nutrition and hydration tubes to live.
- Theresa's brain severely deteriorated over the next decade, with no hope of medical cure or recovery of cognitive function.
- After an initially amicable relationship, Theresa's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, came into conflict over her care in 1993.
- In 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the guardianship court to authorize the termination of Theresa's life-prolonging procedures, an action her parents opposed.
- Pursuant to a final, affirmed court order, Theresa's nutrition and hydration tube was removed on October 15, 2003.
- On October 21, 2003, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 2003-418, known as "Terri's Law," which Governor Jeb Bush immediately signed.
- Acting under the new law, Governor Bush issued an executive order to stay the withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa, and her feeding tube was reinserted.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Schiavo petitioned the guardianship court (a circuit court) for authorization to terminate life-prolonging procedures for his wife, Theresa Schiavo.
- After a trial, the guardianship court granted the petition, finding clear and convincing evidence that Theresa would have made this decision herself.
- Theresa's parents, the Schindlers, appealed, and the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the guardianship court's order.
- The Schindlers initiated several years of post-judgment litigation, filing multiple motions for relief from judgment, all of which were ultimately denied by the guardianship court and affirmed on appeal by the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Florida Supreme Court declined to review any of the appellate decisions in the guardianship case.
- Following the enactment of chapter 2003-418 and the Governor's executive order, Michael Schiavo filed a new action in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Michael Schiavo, declaring the Act unconstitutional.
- Governor Bush, the appellant, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, which certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court for immediate resolution.
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 law that grants the Governor the authority to issue a one-time stay to prevent the withholding of nutrition and hydration from a patient, after a final court judgment has authorized such withholding, violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Pariente
Yes, the law violates the separation of powers doctrine. The legislative and executive branches cannot collaborate to retroactively nullify a final judicial order. The law constituted an unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial branch by allowing the executive branch to reverse a final judgment that had been fully litigated and subject to appellate review. A court's final decision is the last word of the judicial department and is not subject to review or reversal by the Governor. Additionally, the Act is unconstitutional on its face as an improper delegation of legislative power. The Legislature failed to provide any standards or guidelines to direct the Governor's discretion in deciding whether to issue a stay, how long it should last, or when it should be lifted, granting him unfettered discretion to act by whim rather than by law.
Analysis:
This case serves as a powerful affirmation of the strict separation of powers doctrine in Florida, establishing a firm precedent against legislative or executive interference with final judicial judgments. The decision reinforces the principle that the political branches cannot enact laws targeted at a specific, concluded case to alter its outcome. This protects the judiciary's independence and ensures the finality of litigation, preventing a scenario where vested rights could be stripped away by politically motivated legislation after a case has been resolved by the courts.
Unlock the full brief for Bush v. Schiavo