IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.205.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court amends Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(1) to prohibit judges and judicial branch entities from recommending policies inconsistent with those adopted by the Supreme Court.
[1] The Supreme Court of Florida has the authority to establish policy for the judicial branch, including state budget and compensation priorities.
[2] Judges, supreme court created bodies, and conferences of judges are prohibited from recommending state budget priorities or policies inconsistent with Supreme Court polic…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Court previously amended rule 2.205 to establish its policy-making authority for the judicial branch and prohibit judges from recommending budget …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(1) (Internal Government; Exercise of Powers and Jurisdiction), as explained below. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(g)(1).
In In re Implementation of Judicial Branch Governance Study Group Recommendations-Amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration , 121 So.3d 1, 1 (Fla. 2012), as part of the Court's goal to "strengthen the governance and policy development structures of the Florida judicial branch," this Court amended subdivision (a)(1)(A) of rule 2.205, as suggested by the Judicial Branch Governance Study Group, to expressly recognize that this Court establishes policy for the judicial branch. Consistent with the Court's policy-making authority, which includes establishing state budget and compensation priorities for the judicial branch, the Court also added subdivision (a)(1)(B) to rule 2.205 to prohibit any judge or supreme court created body, or any conference of judges from recommending to the legislative or executive branch state budget priorities, including compensation and benefits, that have not been approved by the Court. As originally adopted, subdivision (a)(1)(B) recognizes that this prohibition does not "apply to judges expressing their personal views who affirmatively make it explicitly clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the judicial branch."
The Court now amends subdivision (a)(1)(B) to further prohibit any judge or *1084supreme court created body, or any conference of judges from recommending to "any legislative or executive branch entity" "any policy inconsistent with a policy position adopted by [this Court]." The Court also adds a sentence to that subdivision to make clear that "[n]o resources of any judicial branch entity may be used to facilitate or support the expression of [a judge's] personal views."
Accordingly, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205 is amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion. Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.1
It is so ordered.
Original Proceeding-Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
APPENDIX
*1085RULE 2.205. THE SUPREME COURT
(a) Internal Government.
(1) Exercise of Powers and Jurisdiction.
(A) [No Change]
(B) Consistent with the authority of the supreme court to establish policy, including recommending state budget and compensation priorities for the judicial branch, no judge, supreme court created committee, commission, task force, or similar group, and no conference (Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, Conference of Circuit Court Judges, Conference of County Court Judges) is permitted to recommend to any legislative or executive branch entity state budget priorities, including compensation and benefits, to the legislative or executive branch that have not been approved by the supreme court.,or any policy inconsistent with a policy position adopted by the supreme court. This subdivision is not intended to apply to judges expressing their personal views who affirmatively state that they are not speaking on behalf of the judicial branch. No resources of any judicial branch entity may be used to facilitate or support the expression of such personal views.
(C) [No Change]
(2)-(4) [No Change]
(b)-(g) [No Change]