ORLANDO, FL (June 6, 2024) — The recent opinion from the Florida Supreme Court in the
case of Monique Haughton Worrell v. Ron D. DeSantis highlights a troubling trend in the
appointed judiciary: facts and truth appear to have become secondary considerations. The
Court’s decision to deny State Attorney Worrell’s petition for quo warranto and mandamus based
on allegations alone—without the need to prove these allegations as true—reflects a disturbing
precedent.
In their own phrasing, the Court does not even attempt to assert the veracity of the allegations.
Instead, it merely emphasizes that the allegations exist and are sufficient to justify the
suspension. This lack of scrutiny and demand for factual proof shows a glaring disregard for the
fundamental principle that justice should be rooted in truth. The allegations from the Osceola
County Sheriff’s Office, which have been previously disproven, were still accepted by the Court
as a basis for their decision. This blatant disregard for factual accuracy validates the notion that,
in Florida, when it comes to political maneuvers, facts do not matter.
This judicial approach is a mockery of democracy and an affront to the political independence
that the judiciary should uphold. By rubber-stamping Governor DeSantis’s attacks on his
political adversaries, the Court has compromised its role as an impartial arbiter of justice and has
instead become a tool for political agendas. This not only undermines the credibility of the
judiciary but also erodes public trust in the legal system.
Justice Labarga’s dissent is particularly telling and warrants close attention. Justice
Labarga argues that the suspension of a duly elected official based on vague and unproven
allegations sets a dangerous precedent. He emphasizes that the executive order, serving as the
charging document, must provide sufficient notice to the suspended officer to allow for a
meaningful defense. Without judicial review to ensure this, the governor’s immense authority to
override the will of the voters remains unchecked.
Justice Labarga highlights the disparity between the due process afforded to officials subject to
impeachment under Article III, Section 17, and those subject to suspension under Article IV,
Section 7(a). He underscores that the constitution effectively allows the governor to override the
will of the majority who elected the official and to appoint a replacement of his choosing. This, he argues, undermines the very bedrock of democracy, which is the right to elect public officials
in fair and open elections.
Justice Labarga also stresses the importance of prosecutorial discretion and the complex role of
state attorneys. He notes that policies and decisions made by state attorneys must reflect the
specific challenges and needs of their circuits, and that broad allegations of “incompetence” and
“neglect of duty” fail to recognize the nuanced and multifaceted nature of their responsibilities.
“Today’s opinion is disappointing but not a surprise. The governor appointed
most of the justices on Florida’s Supreme Court. They took the easy way out by
refusing to examine whether the governor’s claims had any factual basis. They do
not, and the Court today, with the exception of the dissenting justice,
rubber-stamped a political stunt.
There is no evidence that citizens in the Ninth Circuit have experienced a higher
rate of violent crime based on my administration’s “practices or policies,” and the
Executive Order is notably silent on violent crime statistics. Those statistics show
that violent crime rates are lower in the Ninth Circuit during my tenure than they
have been over the past ten years. We treated people equitably and fairly and
worked to hold law enforcement accountable—which the governor does not like. I
still believe in the right of voters to choose their State Attorney, even if Florida’s
politics currently do not respect this principle. When I am reelected, I will
continue putting public safety and accountability above politics. I wish the
governor would do the same.” —Duly-Elected State Attorney Monique Worrell
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is a troubling indication of the erosion of factual
accountability and judicial independence in this state. It is a stark reminder that when politics
take precedence over facts, the very foundation of democracy is at risk. Justice Labarga’s
dissent serves as a powerful critique of the majority’s failure to uphold the principles of
justice and democratic integrity. The Court’s ruling not only diminishes the role of factual
truth in judicial processes but also sets a dangerous precedent for the use of judicial power as a
political weapon.