Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 08-08-2006 ‎(executive)‎ — reading text

115 S. Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 ( 1995) benefit of litigants aggrieved by the decisions of the citations omitted). lower court, and that "[ a] ppeal is the exclusive remedy." Id. 3] Under the express separation of powers in our state constitution, " the judiciary is 6] In this case, the undisputed facts show that the provision a coequal branch of the Florida government vested guardianship court authorized Michael to proceed with the sole authority to exercise the judicial power, with the discontinuance of Theresa' s life support and " the legislature cannot, short of constitutional after the issue was fully litigated in a proceeding in amendment, reallocate the balance of power which the Schindlers were afforded the opportunity to present evidence on all issues. This order as expressly delineated in the constitution among the @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 497D- 9703- 0CFDA... 8/ 3/ 2006 https:// web2. westlaw .com/print/printstream. aspx?utid=%257b87F 1 E849- A561-  Page 11 of 17 885 So. 2d 321 Page 11 885 So.2d 321, 29 Fla. L.Weekly S515 Cite as: 885 So.2d 321) well as the order denying the Schindlers' motion for effective both before the passage of the Act and relief from judgment were affinned on direct after its fifteen- day effective period expired, circuit appeal. See Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 177; Schiavo courts are charged with adjudicating issues IV, 851 So. 2d at 183. The Schindlers sought regarding * 332 incompetent individuals. The trial review inthis Court, which was denied. courts of this State are called upon to make many of Thereafter, the tube was removed. Subsequently, the mostdifficult decisions facing society. In pursuant to the Governor's executive order, the proceedings under chapter 765, Florida Statutes nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted. Thus, 2003), these decisions literally affect the lives or the Act, as applied in this case, resulted in an deaths of patients. The trial courts also handle executive order that effectively reversed a properly other weighty decisions affecting the welfare of rendered final judgment and thereby constituted an children such as tennination of parental rights and unconstitutional encroachment on the power that child custody. See ~ 61.13( 2)( b)(1), Fla. Stat. has been reserved for the independent judiciary. 2003) (" The court shall detennine all matters Cf Bailey, 10 Fla. at 249- 50 ( noting that had the relating to custody of each minor child of the parties statute under review " directed a rehearing, the in accordance with the best interests of the child and hearing of the case would necessarily carry with it in accordance with the Unifonn Child Custody the right to set aside the judgment of the Court, and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act."); ~ 39. 801( 2), there would be unquestionably an exercise of Fla. Stat. ( 2003) (" The circuit court shall have judicial power"). exclusive original jurisdiction of a proceeding involving tennination ofparental rights."). When 7] The Governor and amici assert that the Act does the prescribed procedures are followed according to not reverse final court order because an order to a our rulesof court and the governing statutes, a final discontinue life- prolonging procedures may be judgment is issued, and all post-judgment challenged at any time prior to the death of the procedures are followed, it is without question an ward. In advancing this argument, the Governor invasion of the authority of the judicial branch for and amici rely on the Second District' s conclusion the Legislature to pass a law that allows the that as long as the ward is alive, an order executive branch to interfere with the final judicial discontinuing life- prolonging procedures " is subject detennination in a case. That is precisely what to recall and is executory in nature." Schiavo IL occurred here and for that reason the Act is 792 So. 2d at 559. However, the Second District unconstitutional as applied to Theresa Schiavo. did not hold that the guardianship court' s order was not a final judgment but, rather, that the Schindlers, as interestedparties, could file a motion for relief Delegation of Legislative Authority from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540( b)( 5) if they sufficiently alleged 9][ In addition to concluding that the 10][ 11][ 12] that it is no longer equitable that the judgment have Act isunconstitutional as applied in this case prospective application. See id. at 561. Rule because it encroaches on the power of the judicial 1. 540( b) expressly states that a motion filed branch, we further conclude that the Act is pursuant to its tenns " does not affect the finality of unconstitutional on its face because it delegates a judgment." Further, the fact that a final judgment legislative power to the Governor. The Legislature may be subject to recall under a rule of procedure, is pennitted to transfer subordinate functions " to if certain circumstances can be proved, does not pennit administration of legislative policy by an negate its finality. Unless and until the judgment is agency with the expertise and flexibility to deal with vacated by judicial order, it is " the last word of the complex and fluid conditions." Microtel, Inc. v. Fla. Public Servo Comm' n, 464 So. 2d 1189, 1191 judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy." Plaut, 514 U. S. at 227, 115 S. Ct. Fla. 1985). However, under article II, section 3 of 1447. the constitution the Legislature " may not delegate the power to enact a law or the right to exercise 8] Under procedures enacted by the Legislature, unrestricted discretion in applying the law." Sims V. @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works. 8/ 3/ 2006 https:// web2.westlaw .comlprint/printstream. aspx?utid=%257b87F 1 E849- A561- 497D- 9703- 0CFDA...  Page 120fl? 885 So. 2d 321 Page 12 885 So. 2d 321, 29 Fla. L.Weekly S515 Cite as: 885 So. 2d 321) State, 754 So. 2d 657, 668 ( Fla.2000). This guidance of their official acts." State Dep' t oj the nondelegation doctrine, Citrus v. Griffin, 239 So. 2d 577, 581 ( Fla. 1970). prohibition, known as requires that " fundamental and primary policy decisions ... be made by members of the legislature In both Askew and Lewis, this Court held that the who are elected to perfonn those tasks, and [ that respective statutes under review violated the the] administration of legislative programs must be nondelegation doctrine because they failed to pursuant to some minimal standards and guidelines provide the executive branch with adequate ascertainable by reference to the enactment guidelines and criteria. In the Court Askew, invalidated statute that executive directed the establishing the program." Askew v. Cross Key a Waterways, 372 So. 2d 913, 925 ( Fla. 1978); see branch to designate certain areas of the state as also Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State, 723 So. 2d 199, 202 areas of critical state concern but did not contain Fla. 1998) ( citing Askew with approval). In other sufficient standards to allow " a reviewing court to words, statutes granting power to the executive ascertain whether the priorities recognized by the branch " must clearly announce adequate standards Administration Commission comport with the intent to guide ... in the execution of the powers delegated. of the legislature." 372 So. 2d at 919. The statute The statute must so clearly define the power in question enunciated the following criteria for the delegated that the [ executive] is precluded from Division of State