NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents
| Decision Date | 13 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. SC02-1878.,SC02-1878. |
| Citation | 863 So.2d 294 |
| Parties | NAACP, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Daniel H. Thompson of Berger Singerman, Tallahassee, FL; and Mitchell W. Berger of Berger Singerman, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioners.
Daniel Woodring, Office of the General Counsel, Florida Dept. of Educ., Tallahassee, FL, for Respondents. Arthur J. England and Elliot B. Kula of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL; and Woody N. Peterson, Bradley D. Wine, Timothy D. Sparapani, and Eden M. Polatnick of Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, Washington, DC, for AARP; Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Inc.; Alliance of Healthcare and Professional Employees, NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; American Civil Liberties Union of Florida; Eathjustice, Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc.; Federation of Physicians and Dentists/Alliance of Healthcare and Professional Employees, NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Florida AFL-CIO; Florida Consumer Action Network, Inc.; Florida Education Association; Florida League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Florida National Organization for Women, Inc.; Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Florida Wildlife Federation; Florida Women's Consortium; Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; International Brotherhood of Teamsters on Behalf of Its Florida Local Unions—173 (Bradenton), 512 and 947 (Jacksonville), 390 and 769 (Miami), 385 (Orlando), and 79 (Tampa); 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc.; Save Our Suwannee, Inc.; The Sierra Club; and Trial Lawyers For Public Justice, Amici Curiae.
David Lipman, Miami, FL; and Thomas J. Henderson, Michael L. Foreman, and Audrey J. Wiggins, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, for The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, Amici Curiae.
We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the question of a voluntary association's standing to bring a rule challenge in Florida administrative proceedings. The district court certified the question to be of great public importance:
DO APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES HEREIN HAVE STANDING TO MAINTAIN CHALLENGES TO THE SUBJECT RULES?
NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 822 So.2d 1, 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and quash the First District's decision.1
The National Association for Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (hereinafter NAACP), and its members Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin (Garvins), brought a rule challenge to the Board of Regents' amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rules 6C-6.001 and 6C-6.002 concerning admissions to the State University System. The rule amendments concerned the elimination of certain affirmative action policies by Florida's state universities. The association claimed that in addition to its traditional role as an advocacy group for minority rights, its membership included a large number of middle school, high school, and university students who would be affected by the change in policy. The petitioners brought the rule challenge pursuant to section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), which states in pertinent part: "Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority."
The Board of Regents and the Board of Education filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that the allegations of the petition were legally insufficient to demonstrate that any of the petitioners had standing, either individually or in a representative capacity, because they failed to specifically demonstrate how they, or any of NAACP's members, would suffer an actual injury because of the amendments. The administrative law judge (ALJ), held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and denied the motion, finding that the petitioners had presented sufficient evidence to establish NAACP's "associational standing ... to represent [its] members as persons substantially affected by the proposed amendments," and that the Garvins were "substantially affected by the proposed amendments to [r]ules 6C-6.001 and 6C-6.002." NAACP, 822 So.2d at 3.2 The ALJ found that "significant numbers" of middle school, high school, and college students stand to be substantially affected by the rule amendments. Id. at 4.
The First District summarized the ALJ's decision as follows:
Regarding the merits of the rule challenge, the ALJ held that the repeal of rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 () was "an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority"; but that all of the other challenged amendments were valid.
Id. at 3.3
The NAACP appealed the ALJ's decision to the First District, and the Florida Board of Regents and the State Board of Education cross-appealed. In rejecting the ALJ's decision as to petitioners' standing to bring a challenge to the admission rules, the First District stated:
We conclude that NAACP failed to present competent, substantial evidence to establish that any of its members would suffer "a real and sufficiently immediate injury in fact" because of implementation of any of the rule amendments challenged. As a result, it failed to demonstrate that any of its members would be "substantially affected" by implementation of any of the challenged amendments. Therefore, it failed to carry its burden of establishing "associational standing" pursuant to the test announced in Florida Home Builders, and we need not consider whether it met the other requirements, including establishing "that the alleged interest [was] arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated." We hold that NAACP lacked "associational standing" to challenge the rule amendments. Accordingly, we must reverse the ALJ's decision to the contrary.
Id. at 6. The First District reversed the ALJ's final order and remanded the case with directions for the ALJ to dismiss the rule challenge for lack of standing. Id. at 8.
Judge Browning dissented and expressed the view that the majority opinion conflicted with numerous prior First District decisions on standing as well as this Court's decision in Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla.1982). Judge Browning summed up his dissenting position by stating:
[I]n my judgment, the crucial factor is how one weighs the impact of the proposed rules on African-Americans' admission rights to the SUS, as compared to their rights under the repealed affirmative action programs. My "scales" indicate African-American students' admission to the SUS under legally established affirmative action programs cannot be repealed by agency rules without giving those covered by such programs the right to challenge the repeal, because existing case law indicates they are "substantially affected" for rule challenge purposes. On the merits, Appellants might not be entitled to relief. However, they have the interest required as "substantially affected parties" to challenge the proposed rules' validity.
Id. at 14 (Browning, J., dissenting). Upon rehearing, the First District certified to this Court the question of petitioners' standing as one of great public importance. Id. at 14.
In Florida Home Builders, the Florida Home Builders Association brought suit to challenge a rule adopted by the Bureau of Apprenticeship, Department of Labor and Employment Security. 412 So.2d at 352. The hearing officer found that the association had standing to bring the rule challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1979), but the First District reversed, finding that such an association was not a substantially affected party. Id. at 352 (citing Dep't of Labor & Employment Sec. v. Florida Home Builders Ass'n, 392 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)). However, as in the instant case, the First District certified a question of great public importance:
Whether, under section 120.56, Florida Statutes, a trade association, which is not itself affected by an agency rule but some or all of whose members are substantially affected by the rule, may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule as a[n][in]valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Id. at 352. Upon review, this Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, disapproving the First District's decision and remanding the case for a review of the agency rule on the merits. Id. at 352, 354.
In our analysis of "associational standing" in Florida Home Builders, we concluded that the First District's interpretation was "an excessively narrow construction of section 120.56(1)" and that it restricted public access to the processes provided in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 352. In our analysis of the statutorily created "associational standing," this Court explained that a key purpose of the legislation was to expand rather than restrict public participation in the administrative process:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Union v. DEPT. OF EMP. SEC.
...378, 709 A.2d 1116 (1998); Oceanport Industries, Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892 (Del.1994); NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Board of Regents, 863 So.2d 294 (Fla.2003); Aldridge v. Georgia Hospitality & Travel Ass'n, 251 Ga. 234, 304 S.E.2d 708 (1983); Aged Hawaiians v. Hawaiian Ho......
-
K.M. v. Fla. Dep't of Health
...the validity of a rule or proposed rule, the party must be "substantially affected" by the rule. See, e.g., NAACP, Inc. v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 863 So.2d 294, 296 (Fla. 2003) ; Sarnoff v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 825 So.2d 351, 356 (Fla. 2002). In Jacoby, the First Dis......
-
Rosenzweig v. Department of Transp.
...to determine whether the NAACP had standing to challenge a rule amendment concerning admissions to the State University System. 863 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla.2003). Specifically, the rule amendments concerned the elimination of certain affirmative action policies by Florida's state universities. ......
-
ABC Fine Wine & Spirits v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation
...challenges requires an organization to demonstrate that many of its members may be affected by the rule. NAACP, Inc. v. Fla. Bd. of Regents , 863 So. 2d 294, 299 (Fla. 2003). Generally, the fact that a party is regulated by a rule "is alone sufficient to establish that their substantial int......
-
Adjudication of disputed issues of fact under the APA.
...short period of time. It is a dispute resolution mechanism that serves us well. (1) See NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Board of Regents, 863 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2003); Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1981), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla......