With a judge slated to hear arguments this week, the state is trying to short-circuit constitutional challenges to a new law that blocks cities and counties from approving "more restrictive or burdensome" changes to growth plans.
Attorneys for state officials argued in two motions late Friday that Leon County Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey should dismiss challenges filed by 25 cities and counties, the growth-management group 1000 Friends of Florida and an Orange County resident.
The prohibition on growth-plan changes was included this spring in a wide-ranging bill (SB 180) that lawmakers said would help the state recover from the 2024 hurricanes. The law, signed in June by Gov. Ron DeSantis, effectively freezes local land-development regulations and comprehensive plans through Oct. 1, 2027, and was made retroactive to Aug. 1, 2024.
The cities and counties filed a lawsuit in September, and 1000 Friends of Florida and Orange County resident Rachel Hildebrand followed with another lawsuit. In part, the attorneys for state officials argued in Friday’s filings that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the law. Also, they said Dempsey should reject requests for a preliminary injunction against the law.
As an example, the attorneys for state officials contended that a concept known as the “public official standing doctrine” barred the cities and counties from challenging the constitutionality of the law.
“At bottom, the public plaintiffs (the cities and counties) run up against a threshold bar — one that prevents them from reaching (let alone showing they will ‘likely succeed’ on) the merits. As public entities, the public plaintiffs ‘must presume legislation affecting their duties to be valid, and do not have standing to initiate litigation for the purpose of determining otherwise,’” one of Friday’s filings said, partially quoting a 1982 Florida Supreme Court precedent.
In a separate filing, the attorneys for state officials argued that 1000 Friends of Florida and Hildebrand could not show they had suffered a “concrete injury” because of the law.
The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raised a series of issues, including that the law violates local governments’ home-rule authority, violates a constitutional single-subject requirement for legislation and strips the ability of cities and counties to manage growth.
Lawmakers touted the overall bill as helping the state recover from last year’s hurricanes Debby, Helene and Milton. It included changes related to issues such as debris removal, mutual-aid agreements, rebuilding storm-damaged homes and building-permit and inspection fees.
But the lawsuit focuses on a section of the bill that was added May 2 and prohibits local governments from proposing or adopting “more restrictive or burdensome” amendments to comprehensive plans or land development regulations. Any resident or business owner may file suit to enforce the section.
The section applies to governments that were placed under federal disaster declarations from any of the three hurricanes. All 67 of Florida’s counties were listed in at least one of the three declarations.
“Some of the local governments have also had to pause moving forward with planning and zoning regulations that have been years in development even if those regulations are unrelated to emergencies or rebuilding after emergencies, amounting to a waste of the public funds expended in effort to pass said regulations and expanding the reach of SB 180 past emergencies,” the lawsuit filed by cities and counties said.
Dempsey is scheduled Friday to hear arguments on the state officials’ motions to dismiss the cases and the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction requests.
Defendants in the cases are Department of Commerce Secretary J. Alex Kelly, Division of Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie, Department of Revenue Executive Director Jim Zingale and state Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia. The lawsuits said those state officials have roles in carrying out the law or in local-government money.
In addition to contending that the plaintiffs lack legal standing, the state officials’ filings Friday also disputed the arguments about issues such as violating home-rule powers.
“While it’s true that home rule powers are important, the Florida Constitution is unequivocal that general (state) laws reign supreme over home rule powers,” the attorneys from the Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, firm wrote.