Florida Appellate Court Recognizes “Sea Change” in Chevron Deference in Florida: Florida Legal Foundation Leads the Way.

Florida Legal Foundation Brief.pdf

Download PDF • 193KB

Opinion of the Court.pdf

Download PDF • 190KB

Date: March 20, 2024

            Florida Legal Foundation and its President, Frank A. Shepherd, have long opposed what is commonly known as “Chevron Deference” – a 40-year-old doctrine created out of whole cloth by the United States Supreme Court in 1984[1] stating federal courts must give “deference” to a federal agency’s interpretation and understanding of laws passed by Congress and rules enforcing them.  The federal administrative state likes the doctrine because it insulates it from citizen challenges to its authority.   For decades, Florida courts had its own version of “Chevron Deference.” After then Judge Shepherd “railed against” its use in the Florida courts in an opinion he wrote when he was an appellate court judge,[2] the people of the State of Florida amended their constitution in the November, 2018 general election to prohibit agency supremacy in law making in Florida.  Entitled “Judicial interpretation of statutes and rules,” the provision reads:

“A state court or officer may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo.”

Art. V, §21, Fla. Const. More recently, the United States Supreme Court itself rescinded the doctrine.  See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024).  But Florida led the way. See "Florida Just Told State Agencies 'You Don't Get the Final Say Anymore'" posted above.

            However, the administrative state does not go down easily.  In Agency for Health Care Administration v. Murciano, 381 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), AHCA sought to expand its powers under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act.  Florida Legal Foundation, in a “friend of the court” or “brief amicus curiae” argued that administrative law judges, like all other judges in the state, are bound by Article V, section 21.  In this case, an administrative law judge declined to issue findings of fact in a contested Medicaid reimbursement proceeding.  While ordering the ALJ to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under the Administrative Procedure Act on the particular facts of the case, the First District Court of Appeal, a court some consider the Florida equivalent to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, made clear in no uncertain terms that “[t]he adoption of article V, section 21 was an important shift in Florida law” and “means what it says – Article V courts and administrative hearing officers are to make de novo legal conclusions without deference to an agency’s preferred interpretation.”  In so doing, the Court confirmed the Foundation’s argument to the Court, stating:

"We appreciate and respect the experience of amici in this case. We agree that Article V, section 21 represents a sea change in Florida law and is applicable to hearing officers at the Department of Administrative Hearings."

Although AHCA obtained relief on the facts of this case, an important Florida court made clear beyond peradventure that Chevron deference is dead in the State of Florida.

Read the Foundation’s brief amicus curiae and opinion attached above.             

[1] Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 838 (1984),

[2] Pedraza v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, 208 So. 3d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).