Florida Supreme Court Hears Rulemaking Case Arguments

The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the lawsuit alleging Gov. Rick Scott overstepped his constitutional authority in issuing an executive order halting new agency rules from being finalized until they had his approval.

Scott's general counsel, Charles Trippe, argued that the governor -- who, as the state's chief executive appoints agency heads and is responsible for their efforts --has a responsibility to ensure new and existing rules abide by the policy set forth by him and the Legislature. Scott's original order issued in January froze rules from being implemented, but a later executive order superseded that one, declaring that he had authority to set up an agency to review existing rules.

"What we are talking about is an office under the governor which exercises his constitutional authority," Trippe said.

The lawsuit was brought by Rosalie Wiley, a blind Miami resident who alleges the temporary freeze on rulemaking unnecessarily halted a new regulation that would have made it easier to obtain Food Stamps. Sandy D'Alemberte, former president of the American Bar Association and former president of Florida State University, argued on her behalf, downplaying the effect of a new law passed by the Legislature this year that allows for the governor's office to review rules.

"There is nothing in that legislation that allows the governor to hold up rules," D'Alemberte said.

The court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in the coming weeks.

Full story to follow.