Scott J. Israel, Sheriff v. Ron DeSantis, Governor
269 So. 3d 491 (2019)
Rule of Law:
Under Article IV, Section 7(a) of the Florida Constitution, a governor's suspension of a county officer is a valid exercise of executive power, subject to only limited judicial review, so long as the executive order facially states a constitutionally enumerated ground for suspension and provides factual allegations that bear some reasonable relation to that ground. The judiciary will not review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the allegations, as that power is reserved exclusively for the Florida Senate.
Facts:
- Scott J. Israel was reelected as the Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, in 2016 for a four-year term.
- On January 6, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport in Broward County.
- On February 14, 2018, a mass shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
- The Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission released a report on January 2, 2019, concerning the school shooting.
- On January 11, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 19-14, suspending Sheriff Israel from office.
- The executive order alleged 'neglect of duty and incompetence' and cited failures in training and protocols by Israel's office during both mass shootings, based in part on the commission's report.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Israel filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, challenging Governor DeSantis's authority to suspend him.
- The circuit court (trial court) dismissed Israel's petition, finding the executive order legally sufficient.
- Israel, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, identifying it as a matter of great public importance requiring 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 governor's executive order suspending a county officer exceed the governor's constitutional authority under Article IV, Section 7(a) of the Florida Constitution when it states a valid ground for suspension and provides factual allegations that bear a reasonable relation to that ground?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagoa, J.
No. A governor's executive order suspending a county officer does not exceed constitutional authority so long as it meets the limited facial requirements set by the constitution. The Florida Constitution grants the governor broad power to suspend county officers for enumerated reasons, including neglect of duty and incompetence. The judiciary's role is strictly limited to a facial review of the suspension order to determine if it: (1) names a constitutionally valid ground for suspension, and (2) contains factual allegations that bear a reasonable relation to that ground. The court will not assess the truth or sufficiency of the evidence, as that power is exclusively reserved for the Florida Senate, which acts as a special court for removal proceedings. In this case, Executive Order 19-14 properly named 'neglect of duty and incompetence' and provided related factual allegations regarding Israel's failures, thus satisfying the low constitutional threshold for judicial review.
Concurring - Muñiz, J.
No. The Governor acted within his constitutional authority because the allegations in the executive order are clearly connected to the Sheriff's overarching statutory duties. Sheriff Israel's argument that he did not violate a specific statutory duty is too narrow. A sheriff's broad responsibilities as a 'conservator of the peace' and his responsibility for his deputies inherently include developing policies, training, and supervision. The alleged performance deficiencies in the executive order fall squarely within these duties. The proper venue to debate the merits of these factual allegations is the Florida Senate, not the Court.
Concurring - Labarga, J.
No. While the executive order in this case fulfills the constitutional requirement, judicial review of such orders should not be merely pro forma. An executive order suspending a duly elected official must contain specific, detailed factual allegations, not just general or conclusory statements. This is necessary to facilitate meaningful review by the Senate and to provide the suspended official with sufficient notice to mount a meaningful defense. Although this standard is not demanding, it is a substantive constitutional requirement that the Court must enforce.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant discretion afforded to the Florida Governor under the state constitution to suspend public officials and affirms the judiciary's extremely limited, hands-off role in reviewing such actions. The ruling clarifies that the courts will only perform a facial review of a suspension order and will not second-guess the factual basis, effectively cementing the suspension and removal process as a political one between the executive branch and the State Senate. By rejecting the argument that 'neglect of duty' must be tied to a specific statutory violation, the court broadens the scope of conduct for which an official can be suspended, encompassing general performance and judgment related to the inherent responsibilities of an office.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Scott J. Israel, Sheriff v. Ron DeSantis, Governor (2019)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"