Rick Scott, in his official capacity etc. v. Gail Francati
214 So. 3d 742 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state governor is not a proper defendant in a constitutional challenge to a self-executing statute based solely on the governor's general executive duty to enforce the laws. To establish jurisdiction, a plaintiff must also allege a concrete, immediate injury caused by the statute, thereby presenting a justiciable controversy.
Facts:
- Gail Francati is a former resident of a nursing home.
- In 2014, Florida amended section 400.023 of its statutes, which created new procedural requirements for suing parties other than a nursing home's licensee, management, or direct caregivers.
- Francati believed these amendments violated the Florida Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and her right of access to courts.
- The challenged statute does not designate a specific state official for its enforcement; it is self-executing within the judicial process.
- Francati sought a declaration from a court that the statute was unconstitutional.
- Francati did not allege in her complaint that she had suffered a specific injury or loss caused by a third party, or that the statute had actually prevented her from pursuing a specific legal claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Gail Francati filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in a Florida circuit court (trial court).
- Francati named the State of Florida and Governor Rick Scott as defendants in her complaint.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing they were not proper parties and there was no justiciable controversy.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the State of Florida but denied the motion to dismiss Governor Scott.
- Governor Scott petitioned the Florida First District Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition to bar the trial court from proceeding with the case against him.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state governor, by virtue of the general executive duty to faithfully execute the laws, a proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a self-executing statute where the plaintiff has not alleged a concrete injury caused by the statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Rowe, J.
No. A state governor is not a proper defendant in a challenge to a self-executing statute based solely on their general executive power, and a court lacks jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to allege a justiciable controversy. First, the Governor is not a proper defendant because he is not charged with enforcing the specific statute, the action does not involve a broad constitutional duty implicating his specific responsibilities, and he has no actual, cognizable interest in the action's outcome. The court rejected the argument that the analysis changes for a 'self-executing' statute; the Governor’s general duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' is insufficient to make him an adverse party in every constitutional challenge, as this would lead to an absurd result where any law could be challenged by simply naming the Governor. Second, Francati failed to allege a justiciable controversy because she did not present a 'real threat of immediate injury.' Her complaint raised only a general challenge to the statute's constitutionality without alleging any concrete injury or demonstrating how the statute actually infringed upon her rights, which is required for a court to exercise jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces two fundamental jurisdictional doctrines: proper party defendant and justiciability. It establishes that a governor's generalized constitutional duty to enforce laws is not a sufficient basis to name them as a defendant in a challenge to any state statute, especially self-executing ones that operate through the courts. This holding prevents plaintiffs from using the governor as a default defendant to obtain advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws. The ruling also underscores the requirement for a concrete, particularized injury, preventing courts from hearing abstract grievances and ensuring that litigation involves actual, live disputes.
