Desantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n

Citation306 So.3d 1202
Decision Date09 October 2020
Docket Number No. 1D20-2472,No. 1D20-2470,1D20-2470
Parties Ron DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida; Richard Corcoran, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education; Florida Department of Education; and State Board of Education, Appellants, v. FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; Stefanie Beth Miller; Ladara Royal; Mindy Festge; Victoria Dublino-Henjes; Andres Henjes; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.; and NAACP Florida State Conference, Appellees. Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida; Andy Tuck, in his official capacity as the chair of the State Board of Education; State Board of Education; Richard Corcoran, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education; Florida Department of Education; and Jacob Oliva, in his official capacity as Chancellor, Division of Public Schools, Appellants, v. Monique Bellefleur, individually and on behalf of D.B. Jr., M.B., and D.B.; Kathryn Hammond ; Ashley Monroe, and James Lis, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

David M. Wells, Kenneth B. Bell, Lauren V. Purdy, and Nathan W. Hill of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants Governor Ron DeSantis; Commissioner Richard Corcoran ; Andy Tuck as Chair of the State Board of Education; the State Board of Education; the Florida Department of Education; Jacob Oliva as Chancellor, Division of Public Schools.

Joseph W. Jacquot, General Counsel; Raymond F. Treadwell, Deputy General Counsel; and Joshua E. Pratt, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, Tallahassee, for Appellant Governor Ron DeSantis.

Matthew H. Mears, General Counsel; Judy Bone, Deputy General Counsel; and Jamie M. Braun, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Education, Tallahassee, for Appellants Commissioner Richard Corcoran ; Andy Tuck as Chair of the State Board of Education; the State Board of Education; the Florida Department of Education; and Jacob Oliva as Chancellor, Division of Public Schools.

Katherine E. Giddings and Kristen M. Fiore of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; Gerald B. Cope, Jr. of Akerman LLP, Miami; and Ryan D. O'Connor of Akerman LLP, Orlando, for Appellees Florida Education Association; Stefanie Beth Miller; Ladara Royal; Mindy Festge; Victoria Dublino-Henjes; Andres Henjes; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.; and NAACP Florida State Conference.

Jacob V. Stuart of Jacob V. Stuart, P.A., Orlando; and William J. Wieland of Wieland & Delattre, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees Monique Bellefleur, Kathryn Hammond, Ashely Monroe, & James Lis.

Raquel A. Rodriguez of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Miami; and Jarrett B. Davis of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Tampa, for Foundation for Excellence in Education, amicus curiae in support of Appellants.

William E. Ploss, Coral Gables, for Florida Alliance of Retired Americans, amicus curiae in support of Appellees Florida

Education Association; Stefanie Beth Miller; Ladara Royal; Mindy Festge; Victoria Dublino-Henjes; and Andres Henjes.

ROWE, J.

In March 2020, state and local governments across Florida issued emergency orders that restricted the movement of Floridians, shuttered businesses, and closed public schools. The lockdown orders followed guidelines provided by President Donald J. Trump and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcing a fifteen-day strategy to "slow the spread" of the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19. See The White House, 15 Days to Slow the Spread (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/15-days-slow-spread/.

By slowing the spread of the virus, public health officials hoped to "flatten the curve" by reducing the peak number of people requiring health care at one time so that demands on the health care system did not exceed its capacity. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance (Feb. 2007), https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425.

Following the school closure orders, Florida's schools shifted to online instruction. But soon, the fifteen days to "slow the spread" turned into thirty, and days stretched into months. Florida's schools did not reopen for the rest of the academic year. With a new school year approaching and with COVID-19 still present in Florida, policymakers had to decide when and under what conditions would it be safe enough to reopen schools for in-person instruction. Students, parents, teachers, and policymakers were divided on how to answer that question.

Stakeholders disagreed on what public health metrics should be used to determine when to reopen schools and on the appropriate interventions to implement when schools did reopen (social distancing, mask policies, class sizes, and so on). Underlying these disagreements were very different perceptions about the risks posed by COVID-19, the risks posed by not reopening the schools, and views on which risks were more tolerable. Still, after many public debates and after weighing the risks, parents of 1.6 million Florida students expressed their preference for their children to return to the classroom. Parents of other Florida students, believing that returning to school posed too great a risk, chose online instruction. Teachers were similarly divided. Some were eager to return to the classroom; others were not, expressing health concerns for themselves or others in their household.

Also prominent in the debate over school reopening was the potential for a sharp decrease in funding to school districts if large numbers of students chose not to return to the classroom. Because state funding to school districts is lower for students enrolled in online classes, the expected shortfalls were substantial.

Governor Ron DeSantis, Commissioner Richard Corcoran, the Department of Education, Andy Tuck as Chair of the State Board of Education, and Jacob Oliva as Chancellor of the Division of Public Schools (collectively, the State) sought to address the different stakeholder preferences for online and in-person instruction and the potential funding losses to school districts. Commissioner Corcoran issued an emergency order that allowed school districts to continue to provide online instruction and offered increased funding to avoid the expected budget shortfalls. But to qualify for increased funding, school districts had to reopen schools for in-person instruction by the end of August.

The Florida Education Association, six Florida teachers, five parents of Florida students, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc., and the NAACP Florida State Conference (collectively, Appellees) disagreed with the State's school reopening plan. Appellees thought it too risky to reopen schools because the possibility of contracting and transmitting COVID-19 posed too great a threat to students, teachers, their families, and communities. And by conditioning the offer of increased funding for online instruction on school districts committing to reopening schools for in-person instruction, Appellees claimed that the State "forced" school districts to reopen. Appellees sued in circuit court seeking a declaration that the State failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide for a safe and secure public school system. They also moved to temporarily enjoin the emergency order. The trial court granted the injunction and then substantially revised the emergency order.

The State appeals. We reverse because Appellees did not meet the requirements for the trial court to issue an injunction. And even if they had, the trial court exceeded the constitutional limits of its authority by rewriting the Commissioner's order.

I. Facts

After Florida's surgeon general declared a public health emergency stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor DeSantis declared a state of emergency throughout Florida. See Fla. Exec. Order No. 20-52 (Mar. 9, 2020). That declaration and later emergency orders granted state agencies authority to waive regulatory statutes and their own rules when "strict compliance with the provisions of any such statute, order, or rule would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency." Id . at 4. The order defined "necessary action" to include "any emergency mitigation, response, or recovery action: (1) prescribed in the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan ...; or (2) ordered by the State Coordinating Officer." Id .

Exercising authority granted under that order, the State Coordinating Officer directed the Department of Education (DOE) "to take all appropriate actions coordinated with Florida's school districts, state colleges and other educational providers to promote the health, safety, welfare and education of Florida students under the circumstances presented by this emergency." Fla. Div. of Emerg. Mgmt. Order No. 20-004 at 2 (Mar. 13, 2020).

In response, DOE issued an emergency order closing Florida's public schools for in-person instruction until April 15, 2020. See Fla. Dep't of Educ. Order No. 2020-EO-01 at 2 (Mar. 23, 2020). The Commissioner directed public schools to shift to online instruction. Id. But despite the initial plan to close schools only through April 15, schools did not reopen for the rest of the school year.

In the months that followed, state and local governments employed strategies to control the spread of the virus, including placing restrictions on public gatherings, limiting business operations, and maintaining school closures. Meanwhile, guidance from public health authorities shifted on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. At first, authorities recommended non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing and handwashing. They later expanded their recommendations to advise individuals to use face coverings. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, How to Protect Yourself & Others, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/preven...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 2023
    ...Inc., 343 So.3d 106, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, SC22-1052, 2022 WL 16848677 (Fla. Nov. 10, 2022); DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n, 306 So.3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Thus, "[a]lthough there is no precise formula to divine the line between an interest that is sufficient for stand......
  • Southam v. Red Wing Shoe Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 2022
    ...minimal requirements for standing" and finding that the plaintiff did not meet the third requirement); DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n , 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (denying standing under J.P. where the appellees established none of the three standing elements); see also Cmty. P......
  • Torres v. Shaw
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2022
    ...sufficient interest at stake in the controversy that will be affected by the outcome of the litigation.’ " DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n , 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (quoting Equity Res., Inc. v. County of Leon , 643 So. 2d 1112, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ). In the absence of a......
  • Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. The City of Dania Beach
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2023
    ...the second and third requirements for standing: causal connection and redressability. The County relies on DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n, 306 So.3d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). In DeSantis, plaintiffs sued several state officials, including Governor DeSantis, because they disagreed with the Sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Procedural remedies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Causes of Action 17-8 See Also 1. Green v. Alachua Cty ., 323 So.3d 246, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). 2. DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass’n , 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). 3. Scott v. Trotti , 283 So. 3d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). 4. Sch. Bd. of Hernando County v. Rhea, 2013 So.3d 103......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT