Florida Supreme Court Rejects Petition Challenging Agency’s Abortion Webpage

Background

The Florida Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a petition filed by a Palm Beach County attorney, Adam Richardson, alleging that top state officials have improperly tried to interfere with a November referendum on abortion rights.

The Controversy

The petition was filed on September 10, amid a controversy surrounding an Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) webpage and video public-service announcement about abortion issues. While the agency claimed the information presented factual data, critics argued that it was biased against a ballot measure, known as Amendment 4, which seeks to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution.

The Petition

Richardson, in part, asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to AHCA Secretary Jason Weida, Governor Ron DeSantis, and Attorney General Moody, forbidding them from misusing or abusing their offices to interfere with the election for Amendment 4, as well as to unravel any actions they had already taken to do so.

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s main opinion, written by Justice John Couriel, stated that quo warranto cases have been used to question whether state officials have improperly exercised their power. However, the opinion stated that Richardson’s petition did not follow legal precedent, in part because it was based on a criminal law that limits political activities of government officials.

The Problem with the Petition

According to the opinion, "For one thing, we have never held that the writ lies to compel the criminal prosecution of a state actor or to enable a private citizen to enforce a state criminal statute. It is hard to see how he asks us to do anything short of that, for the statute is express about what a violation of its requirements constitutes: ‘a misdemeanor of the first degree.’"

Concurring Opinions

Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jamie Grosshans, and Meredith Sasso joined the opinion. Judge Renatha Francis wrote a concurring opinion, and Judge Jorge Labarga concurred in the result of the main opinion.

Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is a significant setback for those seeking to challenge the agency’s actions and ensure fair treatment of Amendment 4. While the petition was rejected, the controversy surrounding the agency’s webpage and PSAs is likely to continue, with implications for the November referendum on abortion rights.

FAQs

• What was the petition about?
  The petition, filed by Adam Richardson, alleged that top state officials had improperly tried to interfere with a November referendum on abortion rights.
• What was the controversy about?
  A disagreement over an Agency for Health Care Administration webpage and video public-service announcement about abortion issues, which critics said was biased against a ballot measure, known as Amendment 4, that seeks to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution.
• What was the outcome of the petition?
  The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the petition, citing lack of legal precedent and the fact that the petition was based on a criminal law that limits political activities of government officials.