A skeptical Supreme Court aggressively questioned the attorney for two state senators seeking to overturn Gov. Rick Scott's rejection of federal high-speed rail funds.
Saying that legal action "may be premature," Justice Barbara Pariente expressed doubt at Thursday's oral arguments that the court should intervene.
"Should the court interfere with the relationship between the federal government and the governor, and the governor and the Legislature," she mused.
Justice Charles Canady joined Pariente in directing pointed questions to Clifford McClelland, attorney for state Sens. Thad Altman and Arthenia Joyner, who sued Scott on Tuesday in challenging his rejection of $2.4 billion in federal funding.
Canady said the rail project had not been funded by the Legislature and wondered if the lawmakers were asking the court to block Scott from making future vetoes.
The discussion became disjointed at times as McClelland had difficulty hearing the comments and questions.
Charlies Trippe, general counsel for the governor's office, was closely questioned by Justices James Perry, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, but appeared to satisfy the majority of justices with his responses.
Pariente, at one point, suggested that future plaintiffs "would have a field day" if the court were to grant the Altman-Joyner petition.
After less than an hour, the court adjourned to consider the matter, with a decision expected soon.
The case was fast-tracked by the court in acknowledgment of a federally imposed March 4 deadline for the state to accept the stimulus money.
Prior to Thursday's oral arguments, Altman maintained that the legislatively established Florida Rail Enterprise had authority to accept federal high-speed rail grant money before those funds were appropriated.
The Scott administration countered that the governor had a fiduciary duty to protect the state, and argued that Florida taxpayers could be on the hook for $3 billion in uncovered expenses.
Scott's legal team appeared confident after the hearing.
Trippe said, "The most important thing was that I made the point that to get the relief these petitioners are requesting, they would have to get an injunction against the governor, the Legislature and essentially the federal government to do things that are in their sound discretion."
Speaking to reporters afterward, McClelland said, "One of the most important questions [the justices] asked was they wanted a clear act that they could look at to force a writ against the governor."
Asked for his assessment, McClelland said it "is still up in the air."
Regarding the peppering he took from the bench, the Melbourne attorney noted, "You can anticipate that when you have a significant case like this."
--
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
