The Florida Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on the legality of a state law that blocks local government officials from passing firearms regulations that are more strict than what the state allows.
The high court accepted jurisdiction on Sept. 9 in the case of the city of Weston and several other local government agencies that are challenging prohibitions against local officials putting in place gun restrictions. Amendments passed in 2011 bar local ordinances relating to firearms and ammunition that violate the state’s preemption.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are challenging the potential imposition of $5,000 fines against any local government official who knowingly violates the state law, as well a provision of the law allowing prevailing plaintiffs in lawsuits against cities and counties to recover $100,000 in damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees.
“When local officials are voting, they should not be worried about potential personal financial consequences or being fired,” Weston City Attorney Jamie Alan Cole told the Florida Record. “Rather, they should only be thinking about only what is in the best interests of their communities.”
The litigation filed by Cole includes numerous other cities and counties as appellees, such as the counties of Broward and Miami-Dade and the city of St. Petersburg.
The outcome of the case may have a bearing of other Florida lawsuits involving restrictions on the authority of locally elected leaders and government agencies, he said. On a similar issue, Gov. Ron DeSantis has said he would start fining cities $5,000 per person for requiring city employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
“This is an extremely important case that involves important issues related to legislative- and government-function immunities that are really the pillars of our democracy,” Cole said.
The plaintiffs argue that local government officials have the same separation-of-powers immunity as state lawmakers, allowing them to make governing decisions based on their own reading of issues and free from personal financial consequences.
“We find that appellees overstate the immunity afforded to local and agency officials, which does not apply on the facts presented here,” the First District Court of Appeal opinion handed down in April states. That court sided with the state in affirming the legality of the state law.
The state Supreme Court gave the parties until Oct. 4 to file briefs in the litigation, with oral arguments likely during the first quarter of 2022, Cole said.