State Ex Rel. Cotterill v. Bessenger
133 So.2d 409 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that classifies counties by a narrow population range for regulatory purposes is an unconstitutional special law, not a general law, if there is no reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the regulation and the specific population classification.
Facts:
- Arthur Cotterill operated a nudist colony and sunbathers association in Pasco County, Florida.
- The Florida legislature enacted Chapter 61-1433, a law purporting to regulate nudist colonies in the interest of public health, morals, and welfare.
- The law, by its terms, applied only to counties with a population of not less than 36,700 and not more than 38,000.
- At the time of enactment, Pasco County was the only county in Florida that fell within this specific population bracket.
- The law was passed without any published notice of intent and did not contain a provision for a local referendum vote.
- Sheriff F. Leslie Bessenger arrested and held Cotterill under a warrant for violating Chapter 61-1433.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Cotterill was arrested and held by F. Leslie Bessenger, Sheriff of Pasco County, under a warrant for violating Chapter 61-1433, Laws of Florida.
- Cotterill, as relator, petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing he was being illegally restrained.
- The Supreme Court of Florida issued the writ, commanding Sheriff Bessenger to show the authority by which he was holding Cotterill.
- Sheriff Bessenger filed a return to the writ, stating he was holding Cotterill based on the warrant for violating the challenged state law.
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 regulates nudist colonies only in counties with a population between 36,700 and 38,000, and was passed without the notice or referendum required for special laws, violate the Florida Constitution's provisions governing special and local legislation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. A law based on a narrow population classification is an unconstitutional special law if it lacks a reasonable relationship between its subject matter and the population bracket. The Florida Constitution requires that special or local laws be passed only after public notice or with a referendum provision, neither of which occurred here. For a law using a population classification to be considered a 'general law' and thus avoid these requirements, there must be a rational basis for the classification. The court could find no logical reason why the regulation of nudism for public health and morals would be necessary only in counties within the narrow 36,700 to 38,000 population range, but not in counties slightly smaller or larger. Citing its precedent in Ex parte Porter, the court found the population bracket to be arbitrary and concluded the law was an invalid attempt to pass a special law for Pasco County without following constitutional procedures.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'reasonable relationship' test as a crucial check on the legislature's power to enact population-based statutes in Florida. It prevents lawmakers from circumventing constitutional requirements for local laws by creating arbitrary, narrow population brackets that effectively target a single county. The ruling solidifies the judiciary's role in scrutinizing legislative classifications to ensure they are not merely a pretext for special legislation. This precedent makes it more difficult for the legislature to pass targeted laws under the guise of general applicability, thereby protecting counties from being singled out without proper local input.
