Appeals court declines to rule on Florida abortion law amendment

TALLAHASSEE — An appeals court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a financial impact statement that will appear on the November ballot with a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights, saying the case is irrelevant because the statement 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 file a new legal challenge to the revised declaration. The state could also reiterate its arguments that a district judge lacks the authority to decide such cases.

“To the extent Defendants (Floridians Protecting Freedom) wish to bring new claims concerning the revised financial impact statement, they may do so in a separate proceeding,” said Monday’s ruling, shared by Justices Stephanie Ray, Ross Bilbrey and Susan Kelsey. “Appellants (state officials) may re-introduce their arguments about the court’s lack of jurisdiction in a case in which an actual controversy has been presented.”

In briefs filed last week, attorneys for Floridians Protecting Freedom and the state argued that the appeal was moot. Floridians Protecting Freedom also made clear that it will challenge the revised statement, which they say is politicized and inaccurate.

“For its part, the sponsor is committed to pursuing all legal steps available to it, including filing a new lawsuit if necessary, to defend its legal right to a clear and unambiguous presentation of its amendment on the ballot,” the report from Floridians Protecting Freedom said.

Financial impact statements, which typically 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 published an initial explanation of the proposed amendment in November 2023. But on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that put a six-week abortion limit into effect.

Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit in April arguing that the November financial impact statement should be revised because it was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed and ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to prepare a new version.

Attorneys for the state appealed, arguing that Cooper had no legal authority to issue such an order. Amid the appeal, however, legislative leaders ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to review the statement.

Read the most important stories before rush hour

Subscribe to the Times and receive our afternoon newsletter, The Rundown

Every weekday we discuss the most important news from Tampa Bay in the areas of environment, politics, business, education and culture.

You’re all signed up!

Would you like to receive more of our free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s start.

Discover all your options

The conference finalized the revisions last week, but the new version was heavily criticized by Floridians Protecting Freedom. Conference members representing Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida House of Representatives pushed through the changes. DeSantis and other Republican leaders in the state oppose the amendment.

After the revisions, the Tallahassee-based appeals court ordered both sides to file briefs on whether the appeal stemming from the original version was irrelevant. The court said Monday that it declined to “exercise our jurisdiction to decide an irrelevant question. This appeal is therefore dismissed.”

However, the dismissal does not resolve the question of whether Cooper has the authority to review financial impact statements and order revisions.

In their oral argument last week, the state’s lawyers argued that the case was not irrelevant because legal questions about Cooper’s authority were likely to arise again, including in an objection by Floridians Protecting Freedom to the revised declaration.

“Here, the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction is almost certain to arise again,” the brief states. “The (amendment) sponsor has already made it clear that it believes the revised statement ‘remains contrary to Florida law’ and has vowed to challenge it as soon as this (appeals) court permits the sponsor to do so. And while the question is not necessarily one that is likely to arise between the same parties, it undoubtedly does 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 before viability is achieved or when necessary to protect the health of the patient, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.”

The revised financial impact statement states, among other things, that “there is uncertainty about whether the amendment would require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve these and other uncertainties would result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that would negatively impact the state budget. Increased abortions could negatively impact growth in state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is undetermined.”

By Jim Saunders, Florida News Service