FLORIDA – U.S. District Court Judge Melissa Damian has issued a temporary injunction that suspends the Form 6 financial disclosure requirements imposed on Florida mayors and city commission members earlier this year.
As a member of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Damian issued the temporary injunction on June 10.
“During its 2023 session, the Florida Legislature passed, and the governor later signed into law, SB 774, which amended sections 112.3144 and 112.3145, Florida Statutes. As of Jan. 1, 2024, SB 774 applies to mayors and other elected (and appointed) members of the governing bodies of municipalities,” Damian stated in her written ruling.
County commissioners, state legislators and certain other office holders have long been subjected to the Form 6 financial disclosure requirements and they remain subject to those requirements.
Administered and enforced by the Florida Commission on Ethics, annual Form 6 filings require the detailed disclosure of net worth, earnings, income sources, stock holdings, tangible assets worth more than $1,000 and debts.
Before the expanded Form 6 requirements took effect Jan. 1, more than 100 Florida mayors, city commissioners and city council members resigned, including Bradenton Beach City Commissioner Jake Spooner and Longboat Key Town Council member Debbie Murphy. The impending Form 6 requirements also led to the withdrawal of three Anna Maria City Commission candidates.
LAWSUIT UNFOLDS
In January, Fort Lauderdale-based attorney Jamie Cole reached out to city attorneys statewide seeking plaintiffs to join the Form 6 lawsuits to be filed by the Weiss-Serota law firm.
The Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach and Holmes Beach commissions declined the opportunity to join the Form 6 lawsuits as plaintiffs for a $10,000 flat fee. Despite not joining the lawsuit, the Island mayors and commissioners join those statewide who are temporarily relieved of the Form 6 disclosure requirements.
In February, Cole’s law firm, Weiss-Serota, filed separate state and federal lawsuits challenging the Form 6 financial disclosure requirements being imposed on municipal officials. The lawsuits name Florida Commission on Ethics Chair Ashley Lukis and six additional Florida Commission on Ethics members as defendants.
On March 22, the law firm filed with the federal court an expedited motion for preliminary injunction. On April 22, Damian presided over the evidentiary hearing that led to her granting the temporary injunction.
“Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Florida’s Senate Bill 774 on grounds the law impermissibly compels content-based, non-commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. After conducting a hearing and careful review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that entry of a preliminary injunction is warranted,” Damian stated in her ruling.
Damian’s ruling notes that prior to Jan. 1, municipal officials and candidates were required to file the less intrusive Form 1 disclosure form that requires the disclosure of major income sources, but not the amounts earned, and the disclosure of intangible personal properties, real properties and liabilities valued over $10,000.
“After conducting a hearing and careful review of the record, the court concludes that entry of a preliminary injunction is warranted,” Damian stated in her order. “A review of the record reflects the state enacted SB 774 without giving serious consideration to whether the government interests at stake could be addressed through less burdensome alternative means. It is not apparent from the record that a change from the Form 1 requirement to the Form 6 requirement was necessary, nor that SB 774 is substantially related to the state’s identified interests.”
The ruling notes the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that SB 774 impermissibly compels content-based speech in violation of the First Amendment.
RULING REACTIONS
When contacted by The Sun on June 12, Cole said, “We are very pleased with the entry of the preliminary injunction. The Form 6 requirement is the most intrusive financial disclosure anywhere in the United States, stricter than even the one required of the president of the United States. The quintessentially personal information that must be disclosed has nothing to do with the elected officials’ job duties and are not elements of any ethics violations. As noted by the judge, the Form 1 disclosures for municipal elected officials have worked fine for the past 50 years and there was, and is, no evidence showing that the Form 6 disclosures were necessary.”
When asked if the preliminary injunction bodes well for the permanent invalidation of the Form 6 requirements for city officials, Cole said, “This is a good first step towards the ultimate relief we are seeking in the lawsuit, which is the invalidation of SB 774 and a permanent injunction against its enforcement.”
When asked about an estimated timetable for a permanent injunction, Cole said, “We do not have a timetable in place, but the preliminary injunction protects the plaintiffs and all other elected municipal officials during the pendency of the lawsuit.”
On June 10, Anna Maria City Attorney Becky Vose sent Mayor Dan Murphy an email informing him of the ruling and its impact on the Anna Maria mayor and commissioners: “It is, in my legal opinion, a well-reasoned opinion and is supported by applicable case law and relevant facts. As a result of the injunction which applies state-wide, you will not be required to file Form 6 until further notice.”
Holmes Beach Mayor Judy Titsworth said, “I am pleased with the injunction. It is highly intrusive for elected officials in small governments to file this information each year.”
Holmes Beach Commission Chair Terry Schaefer said, “The injunction is relief for those who had not yet filed, as they can revert to Form 1. This may encourage additional small city candidates to run. I appreciate the ruling as it challenges the necessity of the bill. However, I’m certain there will be a corrective bill next session to address the judge’s concerns.”
