The Florida Supreme Court dealt a blow to local governments’ home-rule authority last week by upholding provisions of a state law blocking cities from regulating firearms.
Weston and other Florida cities argued that amendments to the state law enacted in 2011 are invalid because they violated local governments’ legislative immunity and governmental function immunity. The amendments allow courts to assess $5,000 fines against elected or appointed local officials in jurisdictions that enact gun-control measures.
In addition, civil lawsuits may be filed against local agencies if a person or group is adversely affected by a firearms ordinance enacted by a local government.
Though an appeals court sided with the cities in the litigation, the state Supreme Court found that two provisions of the state’s firearms-regulation preemption law don’t violate the authority of local governments.
“The imposition of these civil statutory actions for violations of the preemption statute does not violate governmental function immunity,” the high court’s Jan. 19 majority opinion states. “It is not a core municipal function to occupy an area that the Legislature has preempted, and local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption.”
Weston’s attorney, Jamie Alan Cole, said the decision was disappointing for advocates of local governments’ legislative-immunity protections.
“The decision fails to recognize the importance of legislative immunity to our democracy at all levels of government,” Cole told the Florida Record in an email. “All legislators, including city and county commissioners, need to be free to make decisions that they feel are in the best interest of the public, without worrying that they may be personally penalized as a result of their votes.”
But he noted that the initial litigation set out to overturn three provisions in the preemption statute. These were the ability of the governor to oust local leaders for violations of the law, the $5,000 fines for violations and the provision for private parties to sue local governments for damages.”
“We had prevailed on all three issues at the trial level, and the defendants only appealed the final two issues,” he said. “Thus, the invalidation of the ability of the governor to remove officials for violating the preemption stands, notwithstanding the decision.”
The cities in the litigation have not yet made any decision about further legal actions against the preemption statute, according to Cole.