Lane v. Chiles, 88609
| Decision Date | 21 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 88609,88609 |
| Citation | 698 So.2d 260 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S506 Cecil LANE, et al., Appellants, v. Lawton M. CHILES, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Frank J. Santry and Victoria E. Heuler of Granger, Santry, Mitchell & Heath, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Jonathan A. Glogau, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; M.B. Adelson IV and Andrew J. Baumann, Assistant General Counsels, Tallahassee, on behalf of Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Richard Blaylock and David Guest of Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Tallahassee, on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation; Terry L. McCollough of Terry L. McCollough, P.A., Orlando, on behalf of Florida Conservation Association, for Appellees.
We have for review a final summary judgment of the Circuit Court in Leon County, upholding the constitutionality of article X, section 16, of the Florida Constitution, limiting marine net fishing. The First District Court of Appeal certified the trial court order to be of great public importance, requiring immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. We affirm.
In November 1994, article X, section 16, known as the "net ban" amendment, was adopted through an initiative petition. Eight months after the amendment was passed, but immediately prior to its effective date, Cecil Lane and four other individuals engaged in the business of commercial net fishing brought an action in circuit court challenging its validity on both procedural and substantive grounds. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court applied the rational basis test in analyzing Lane's claims, finding there were no fundamental rights or suspect classes involved. The trial court found that the amendment does not violate Lane's rights under the due process, equal protection, or impairment of contract clauses of the Florida or Federal Constitutions; that there is no legal restraint on the subject matter of a constitutional amendment in Florida except for the single-subject rule; that the time had passed for Lane to challenge the sufficiency of the ballot summary; and that the ballot summary meets the requirements of Florida law.
Lane argues that the trial court erred in applying the rational basis test rather than the strict scrutiny standard to review the amendment's validity. We disagree. As the trial court explained in its order,
[a]n analysis of the constitutionality of Article X Section 16 must begin with the proposition that all legislative enactments are presumed to be valid. State v. Kinner, 398 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1981). A party challenging the constitutionality of an enactment has a heavy burden to show that it is invalid. Village of North Palm Beach v. Mason, 167 So.2d 721 (Fla.1964). Generally, a state statute must be upheld if it meets the rational relationship test; that is, if there is any reasonable relationship between the act and the furtherance of a valid governmental objective. Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep't of State, 392 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1980); Johns v. May, 402 So.2d 1166 (Fla.1981).
The plaintiffs argue that this case should be subject to a higher standard of scrutiny because the restriction in question was adopted as a result of a constitutional initiative and not as a part of the deliberative process of enacting laws in the Florida Legislature. There is no precedent for this argument and the court concludes that it does not pass the test of common sense. It is illogical to conclude that the people of Florida have greater protection in the legislative process where they participate indirectly through their representatives, than they do in the constitutional initiative process where they can participate directly by their casting their own votes. Moreover, the Florida Constitution is the supreme law of Florida, and, as such, it takes precedence over any contrary provisions of the common law or statutes. Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769 (1914); Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994). If a constitutional amendment is a higher authority than a state statute, it stands to reason that it is entitled to an even greater degree of deference from the courts.
We agree with the trial court's reasoning. In most cases the rational basis standard is used to test the constitutional validity of a state statute. 1 It follows logically that the same test would be used to determine the validity of a constitutional amendment adopted through the initiative process. In exceptional cases, where actions by the state abridge some fundamental right or adversely affect a suspect class, the strict scrutiny standard should be applied. Lite, 617 So.2d at 1060 n. 2. Because fishing is not a fundamental right, 2 and commercial fishermen do not constitute a suspect class, 3 the rational basis test rather than the strict scrutiny standard applies in the instant case. Thus, article X, section 16, must be upheld if it bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible governmental objective, and is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive. See 617 So.2d at 1059-60.
Lane also claims that the amendment constitutes special interest legislation and is improper subject matter for inclusion in the Florida Constitution. We disagree. This Court has stated that
the people can by initiative amend any "portion or portions" of the Constitution in any way that they see fit, provided that the amendment brought to vote by an initiative petition confines itself to a single subject matter.
Smathers v. Smith, 338 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla.1976)(emphasis added). There is no limitation on matters which can be the subject of a constitutional amendment in Florida; thus, Lane's claim is without merit.
Lane next argues that the amendment is unconstitutional because it deprives him of his right to due process of law. He claims that he and other fishermen have been deprived of a fundamental liberty interest 4 and property interest 5 and that his personal property has been taken without just compensation. 6 We find no merit to these claims. To comply with the constitutional guarantee of due process under the rational basis standard, the amendment must bear a reasonable relationship to a permissible governmental objective. See Lite, 617 So.2d at 1059. We hold that the net ban amendment seeks to protect the state's natural resources which is a valid state objective, and the amendment's limitation on the types and sizes of nets that can be used to fish in Florida waters is rationally related to that goal and does not constitute a taking.
As to Lane's assertion that he has been deprived of his right to due process in a liberty or property interest, we disagree and approve of the trial court's analysis and conclusion:
[A] state regulation violates a protected liberty interest if it completely interferes with the right to engage in a lawful occupation. Fraternal Order of Police v. Department of State, 392 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1980). However, that is not the case with respect to Article X Section 16. The amendment satisfies the rational basis test in that it serves to accomplish a legitimate governmental objective. The amendment is designed to conserve marine resources and it attempts to meet that objective by a reasonable regulation on commercial fishing. While citizens of differing views could argue the wisdom of the amendment, it would be hard to say that the amendment is without any rational basis.
Moreover, the amendment does not completely prevent the plaintiffs from engaging in their chosen occupation. Commercial fishermen can still fish with nets beyond the territorial limits set by the amendment and they can still fish with nets of a smaller size within the territorial limits. Article X, Section 16 is widely known as the "net ban amendment" but despite this reference the amendment does not actually ban all net fishing. It is more accurate to say the amendment restricts certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.M.T. v. T.M.H.
...does abridge a fundamental right or adversely affect a protected class, a higher level of scrutiny is appropriate. See Lane v. Chiles, 698 So.2d 260, 263 (Fla.1997). Sexual orientation has not been determined to constitute a protected class and therefore sexual orientation does not provide ......
-
State v. T.M., No. SC02-2452 (FL 11/18/2004)
...only remaining question is whether the ordinances are rationally related to those legitimate government interests. See Lane v. Chiles, 698 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla. 1997) ("Generally, a state statute must be upheld . . . if there is any reasonable relationship between the act and the furtherance......
-
NORTH FLA. WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES v. State
...one." Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 314, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); see also Lane v. Chiles, 698 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla.1997) ("Generally, a state statute must be upheld ... if there is any reasonable relationship between the act and the furtherance of a......
-
Support Working Animals, Inc. v. Desantis
...than restrictions adopted as part of the deliberative process of enacting laws in the Florida Legislature. See Lane v. Chiles , 698 So. 2d 260, 262–64 (Fla. 1997) ; see also Carney , 890 N.E.2d at 131, 131 n.12 ("[T]he [ballot] initiative process and the Statewide election will satisfy the ......
-
Florida's state constitutional adjudication: a significant shift as three new members take seats on the state's highest court?
...1989-1998 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1998). Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc., 701 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1997). Lane v. Chiles, 698 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1997). Trammel v. Stewart, 697 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1997). Krischer v. McIver, 697 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1997). Recchi America Inc. v. Hall, 6......