News
Court dismisses Florida abortion ‘financial impact statement’ case – NBC 6 South Florida
An appeals court on Monday refused to accept a fight arising from a “financial impact statement” that will appear on the November ballot with a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights, saying the case is moot because the declaration was revised last week.
However, a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeals raised the possibility that Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee sponsoring the proposed constitutional amendment, could launch a new legal challenge to the revised declaration — and that the state could reiterate its arguments that a circuit judge does not have the authority to decide such cases.
“To the extent that appellees (Floridians Protecting Freedom) wish to raise new claims regarding the revised financial impact statement, they may do so in a separate proceeding,” said Monday’s ruling shared by Judges Stephanie Ray, Ross Bilbrey and Susan Kelsey. “Appellees (state officials) may again raise their arguments regarding the circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction in a case where there is a genuine controversy presented.”
In briefs filed last week, lawyers for Floridians Protecting Freedom and the state argued that the appeal was not moot. Floridians Protecting Freedom also made clear that it will challenge the revised declaration, which it claims is politicized and inaccurate.
“For its part, the sponsor is committed to taking all available legal action, including filing a new lawsuit if necessary, to vindicate its legal right to a clear and unambiguous presentation of its amendment on the ballot,” the Floridians Protecting Freedom brief said.
Financial impact statements, which often receive little attention, provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. But the abortion impact statement has become embroiled in controversy as Floridians Protecting Freedom seeks to pass an amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
A group of economists known as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference released an initial statement for the proposed amendment in November 2023. But on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed a six-week limit on abortions to go into effect.
Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit in April arguing that the November financial impact statement needed to be revised because it was out of date following the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed and ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to draft a new version.
State attorneys appealed, arguing that Cooper lacked the legal authority to issue such an order. Amid the appeal, however, legislative leaders directed the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to reword the statement.
The conference completed its revisions last week, but the new version drew strong criticism from Floridians Protecting Freedom. Conference members representing Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida House drafted the changes. DeSantis and other state Republican leaders oppose the amendment.
After the revisions, the Tallahassee appeals court ordered both sides to file briefs on whether the appeal stemming from the original version was moot. The court said Monday that it declined to “exercise our jurisdiction to decide a moot question. This appeal is therefore dismissed.”
The dismissal, however, does not resolve the issue of whether Cooper has the authority to review and order revisions to financial impact statements.
In their brief last week, state lawyers argued that the case was not moot because the legal questions about Cooper’s authority were likely to recur — including in a challenge by Floridians Protecting Freedom to the reworded declaration.
“Here, it is a virtual certainty that the issue of circuit court authority will recur,” the brief said. “The sponsor has already made clear that he believes the revised declaration ‘continues to violate Florida law’ and has promised to challenge it as soon as this court (of appeals) permits the sponsor to do so. And while the issue need not be one that is likely to recur between the same parties, that is undoubtedly true here.”
The proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the ballot as Amendment 4. It says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the health of the patient, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.”
In part, the revised financial impact statement says there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve these and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions could negatively impact state and local revenue growth over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be accurately estimated, the full impact of the proposed amendment is undetermined.”