Montgomery v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV.
468 So.2d 1014 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While petitioners may initially have standing to challenge a proposed administrative rule based on a real and immediate injury, their challenge may become moot if intervening events remove the immediate threat of harm, making it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief, especially when class action is not permissible in such proceedings.
Facts:
- Betty Montgomery and Gussie Williams are recipients of food stamps and heads of households.
- The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) proposed Rule 10C-3.60, which establishes terms for food stamp recipients to participate in a statewide 'workfare' program.
- The Florida Legislature appropriated funds for the workfare program to be implemented in only two specific counties, rather than statewide, with further implementation contingent on future legislative action.
- Montgomery and Williams reside in Orange County.
- Counties interested in participating in the workfare program were required to express their interest in writing to HRS by September 1, 1984.
- Orange County did not express an interest in participating in the workfare program by the September 1, 1984 deadline.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Montgomery and Gussie Williams filed a petition challenging the validity of proposed Rule 10C-3.60 with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
- The Division of Administrative Hearings dismissed Montgomery and Williams' challenge for lack of standing.
- Montgomery and Williams (appellants) appealed the final order of dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
- The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is the appellee in this appeal.
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 challenge to a proposed statewide administrative rule become moot when the rule's implementation is limited to specific counties, and the petitioners' county of residence is excluded from immediate implementation, thereby removing any real and immediate threat of injury to them?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a challenge to a proposed statewide administrative rule becomes moot when intervening circumstances remove the immediate threat of harm to the petitioners. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that while Montgomery and Williams initially had standing because, at the time of filing, they were heads of households likely to be affected by the proposed statewide workfare rule, subsequent events rendered their specific claim moot. The court applied the 'injury-in-fact' test for standing, noting that the injury must be 'real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.' However, after their petition was filed, Orange County (their residence) failed to express interest in participating by the deadline, eliminating any immediate concern that they would be subjected to workfare. The court explained that mootness is 'the doctrine of standing set in a time frame,' requiring the requisite personal interest to continue throughout the litigation. A case becomes moot if, due to changed circumstances, it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief. Given the multiple contingencies required for the rule to affect the appellants (additional funding, Orange County opting in, appellants still residing there and meeting status requirements), any determination by the court would have no present effect on them. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a proposed rule challenge under Florida law is not a proper proceeding for a class action, meaning that the 'live' issues for individuals in the two implementing counties do not save the appellants' case from mootness.
Analysis:
This case offers a critical illustration of the interplay between standing and mootness, emphasizing that a petitioner's 'injury-in-fact' must persist throughout the litigation for a controversy to remain justiciable. It clarifies that even if a rule purports to be statewide, its specific, limited implementation can render a challenge moot for parties not directly affected by the immediate implementation. The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in resolving actual, ongoing controversies where effectual relief can be granted, rather than offering advisory opinions on hypothetical future harms. Moreover, the decision highlights procedural limitations in Florida law, specifically that rule challenge proceedings do not permit class actions, preventing individual petitioners from relying on the continued impact of a rule on others to maintain their own otherwise mooted claims.
