Women's Emergency Network v. Bush
214 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be a proper defendant in a suit challenging a state law under the Ex parte Young doctrine, a state official must have a specific connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute; a governor's general duty to enforce state laws or the act of signing the legislation is insufficient.
Facts:
- The Florida legislature passed a statute, Fla. Stat. § 320.08058(30), creating a specialty license plate with the message 'Choose Life'.
- Governor Jeb Bush signed the 'Choose Life' license plate statute into law.
- The statute designates the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) to implement and manage the license plate program.
- Under Florida law, the 'head' of the DHSMV is the 'Governor and Cabinet,' a body consisting of the governor and six other individuals.
- The Governor and Cabinet appoint an Executive Director who is charged with the 'overall duty and responsibility for the operation of the department.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's 'Choose Life' license plate statute.
- The complaint named Governor Jeb Bush and Fred Dickinson, Executive Director of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, as defendants.
- Governor Bush filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- In the motion, Governor Bush argued that he was not a proper party to the lawsuit because he lacked a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute.
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 a proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state statute where his only connection is signing the bill into law and serving as one of seven members of a body that oversees the enforcing agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, District Judge
No. A state governor is not a proper defendant when his connection to the challenged statute is too attenuated. To be a proper party under the Ex parte Young exception, an official must have some direct connection with the enforcement of the specific act in question. Here, Governor Bush's role as one of seven members of the body heading the department is insufficient, especially when an Executive Director is tasked with the 'overall duty and responsibility' for the department's operations. The court distinguished this from cases like Luckey v. Harris, where the governor had direct and specific powers related to the challenged state action. Furthermore, a governor's general constitutional duty to enforce the laws is too broad a basis for a suit, as it would permit a challenge to any state law simply by naming the governor as a defendant. Finally, the act of signing a bill into law is a legislative function protected by absolute immunity and cannot be the basis for a lawsuit against a governor.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the application of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows individuals to sue state officials to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. The court's decision reinforces that plaintiffs cannot sue a governor by default simply because they are the head of the executive branch. It requires a showing of a specific, non-attenuated connection to the enforcement of the challenged law, compelling litigants to identify the precise official responsible for implementation. This holding serves to shield high-level executive officials from litigation over laws they do not personally enforce and promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring lawsuits are directed at the correct parties.
