Strict Scrutiny

969 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Josie Machovec v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  310 So. 3d 941· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-06-24 ·cited 1×
  Appellants challenged Palm Beach County's mask mandate (EO-12) as unconstitutional, arguing it violated their right to privacy and the right to refuse medical treatment. The trial court denied their motion for a temporary injunction, applying rational basis review. The appellate
• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1593 v. Hillsborough Area Reg'l Transit
  139 So. 3d 345· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court reversed the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) for inconsistently applying Florida's impasse resolution statute in public sector collective bargaining. PERC had previously held in Sarasota County that parties are no longer at impasse once they reach a tentati
• State of La. in the Interest of J.M. State of La. in the Interest of J.M.
  144 So. 3d 853· Fla.· 2014-01-28 ·cited 1×
  The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld two firearms statutes prohibiting juveniles from possessing handguns and carrying concealed weapons after the 2012 constitutional amendment requiring strict scrutiny review of the right to keep and bear arms. The court reversed the juvenile cour
• Figueroa-Santiago v. State
  116 So. 3d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-06-26 ·cited 1×
  Figueroa-Santiago challenged the facial constitutionality of a Florida statute criminalizing the use of electronic communications to further gang interests. The court found only the statute's 'advertising presence' prong unconstitutionally overbroad, but upheld the 'intimidation
• Schmidter v. State
  103 So. 3d 263· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-12-21 ·cited 1×
  Mark Schmidter and Julian Heicklen appealed convictions for indirect criminal contempt arising from distributing FIJA pamphlets about jury nullification at a courthouse complex. The court reversed Heicklen's convictions due to failure to conduct a Faretta inquiry for self-represe
• Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Roberts
  753 F. Supp. 2d 1217· N.D. Fla.· 2010-11-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on its constitutional challenges to Florida's electioneering communications statutes, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Fla. Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  543 F. Supp. 2d 1315· S.D. Fla.· 2008-04-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the County's stevedore permit ordinance, as applied, violates the dormant Commerce Clause for permit denials in 2003, 2004, and 2005, entitling Florida Transportation to summary judgment on liability for those claims.
• CBS Broad., Inc. v. Cobb
  470 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2006-10-24 ·cited 1×
  Florida Statute § 102.031(4)(a), which prohibits solicitation of voters within 100 feet of a polling place, violates the First Amendment as applied to exit-polling activities.
• KH Outdoor, LLC v. Clay Cnty.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1160· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the old sign ordinance were moot because the ordinance was repealed and replaced by a new one, and the provisions that caused the denial of the permits were either removed or cured, or were severable.
• Wilson v. Ake
  354 F. Supp. 2d 1298· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Florida Statutes § 741.212 are constitutional, and that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the Constitution.
• Fla. A.G.C. Council, Inc. v. Florida
  303 F. Supp. 2d 1307· N.D. Fla.· 2004-02-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida Statutes § 287.09451 et seq. violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its race and gender-conscious spending goals are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
• Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach
  322 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's facial challenge to the prior sign ordinance was moot due to the enactment of an amended ordinance, and that takings claims were not ripe. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or attorneys' fees.
• Yahweh v. United States Parole Comm'n
  158 F. Supp. 2d 1332· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy for parolees challenging their conditions of release, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not always required. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over the action.
• Bainbridge v. Bush
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-17 ·cited 1×
  Florida's direct shipment law, while discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause, is a constitutional exercise of state power under the Twenty-First Amendment because it serves core state interests like revenue collection and orderly market conditions.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Digit. Lightwave, Inc.
  986 F. Supp. 2d 982· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the SEC sufficiently pleaded fraud and fraudulent pledge of stock with particularity under Rule 9(b) and stated claims under federal securities laws, and that a pledge of stock for a loan constitutes a sale or offer under those laws.
• Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Clay Cnty. v. Qualls
  772 So. 2d 544· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-08-30 ·cited 1×
  The Board of County Commissioners of Clay County sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's decision quashing the Board's denial of a respondent's Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSCPA) and rezoning application. The court held that decisions regarding SSCPA
• Wright v. City of Tampa
  998 F. Supp. 1398· M.D. Fla.· 1998-03-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the plaintiff's ADA, Title VII, and § 1983 claims, precluding summary judgment.
• Mallory v. Harkness
  895 F. Supp. 1556· S.D. Fla.· 1995-07-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 43.29(1)(a), which mandates race and gender-based quotas for Judicial Nominating Commissions, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
• United States v. Manuel
  992 F.2d 272· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the initial encounter was consensual, the subsequent detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the consent to search was voluntary.
• Erwin L. Rupert v. Dir., United States Fish & Wildlife Serv.
  957 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 1×
  The government can exempt Native American tribes from the prohibition on possessing eagle feathers for religious purposes without violating the Establishment Clause, as this serves important governmental goals.
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  777 F. Supp. 1558· M.D. Fla.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The court found that material issues of fact remained regarding the constitutionality of the MBE program, precluding summary judgment on that motion, and that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the program.
• Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater
  782 F. Supp. 586· M.D. Fla.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 1×
  A city ordinance limiting the number of American flags that can be displayed on private property is unconstitutional as applied to a commercial entity displaying multiple flags, as the display constitutes expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
• Int'l Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward Cnty.
  726 F. Supp. 1556· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the distance ordinances were facially valid time, place, and manner regulations, but the special uses ordinances restricting adult nightclubs to a specific zone were problematic and potentially unconstitutional as applied.
• State v. Friends of Children
  653 F. Supp. 1221· N.D. Fla.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a Georgia-licensed adoption agency could conduct home studies, charge fees for them, and advertise in Florida without stating its non-licensure. It also held that Florida law did not prohibit pregnant women from traveling to Georgia for medical services, birth
• In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig.
  629 F. Supp. 593· S.D. Fla.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a protective order governing discovery materials is not a prior restraint on speech and is a proper exercise of the court's control over the discovery process.
• Hosp. Dev. & Serv. Corp. v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist.
  619 F. Supp. 535· S.D. Fla.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the North Broward Hospital District is entitled to state action immunity on the antitrust claim and summary judgment on the equal protection claims. Broward County is also entitled to summary judgment on the equal protection claim.
• Dan v. Town OF Goshen
  635 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the town's management of the Arcadia Hills Water District by a board elected by all town residents satisfied the rational basis test, and that claims of discrimination in water rates and supply were insufficient.
• Sanchez v. Pingree
  494 F. Supp. 68· S.D. Fla.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida's one-year durational residency requirement for elderly benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause and the fundamental right to travel.
• Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa Cnty.
  11th Cir.· 2026-09-29
  A state law that categorically prohibits a parent convicted of a sex offense involving child pornography from residing with or conducting overnight visits with his own child violates substantive due process as applied to a non-contact offender who poses no demonstrable danger to
• HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Sec'y of the Fla. Dep't of Bus.
  11th Cir.· 2026-08-04
  The district court lacked authority to issue a universal injunction against enforcement of Florida's Protection of Children Act because universal injunctions exceed a federal court's equitable authority under the Judiciary Act, as established in Trump v. CASA, Inc., and no except
• The Florida Bar v. Crowley
  Fla.· 2026-07-09
  Rule 4-8.2(a) is unconstitutional as applied to a lawyer's campaign speech criticizing a fellow candidate for state attorney because it imposes a content-based restriction on protected political speech that fails strict scrutiny. The Bar's interest in protecting judicial system i
• Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa Cnty.
  11th Cir.· 2026-07-06
  Parents, including those convicted of child-sex offenses, enjoy a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment to live with their children. The right is not qualified by a parent's prior criminal conduct or state-defined misconduct, and no exception to this fundamental right
• Colt Handlon v. Div. of Fam. Servs.
  Del.· 2026-02-12
  Colt Handlon appeals a Family Court decision terminating his parental rights in his two minor children after they came into DFS custody due to drug ingestion while in the mother's care. The Delaware Supreme Court affirms the termination, holding that the court did not plainly err
• Baker v. City of Atlanta
  11th Cir.· 2026-01-09
  Four nonresident activists challenged Atlanta's requirement that signature gatherers on local referendum petitions be city residents, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights, and the district court granted their preliminary injunction. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, hol
• Humphreys v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr.
  11th Cir.· 2025-12-15
  The court held that the appellant has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his equal protection claim, and therefore denied his emergency motion for a stay of execution pending appeal.
• In re Ga. Senate Bill 202
  11th Cir.· 2025-12-01
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct the required facial challenge analysis under Moody v. NetChoice, necessitating a remand.
• New S. Media Grp., LLC v. Rainbow City
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-14
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge sign regulations because the city denied their applications based on an unchallenged billboard prohibition, which was the actual cause of their injury.
• Vitali Kravchenko v. Town of Redington Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-30
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Count II, and denying Defendant's motion as to Count III.
• Gavin J. Birney v. C.A. No. K23C-07-019 RLG Del. Dep't OF Safety & Homeland Sec.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-08-29
  The Delaware Superior Court held that HB 451, which prohibited individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing or possessing most firearms, violated Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. The court found that the law infringed upon the fundamental right to
• Fla. Decides Healthcare Inc v. Byrd
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08
  A federal district court in Florida granted preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of new state laws that restrict petition circulator eligibility, finding that the residency and citizenship requirements for those gathering signatures for ballot initiatives impose unconstit
• Bar-Levy v. Cruze
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-29
  The court held that the student failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for his First Amendment claims regarding graduation attire.
• HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Sec'y of the Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg.
  11th Cir.· 2025-05-13
  Florida's Senate Bill 1438 criminalized knowingly admitting children to "adult live performances," including those depicting "lewd conduct," but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held the law was likely unconstitutional on its face because the vague definition of "lewd conduc
• Nord Hodges v. Passidomo
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-31
  The court held that genuine factual issues exist regarding racial gerrymandering of District 16, but not for District 18, and dismissed one plaintiff for lack of standing.
• Floridians Protecting Freedom Inc v. Ladapo
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-17
  The court held that the state's actions in threatening broadcasters with prosecution for airing a political advertisement constituted unconstitutional coercion and viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment.
• J.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-10-16
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision terminating parental rights under section 39.806(1)(f), upholding the statute's constitutionality against strict scrutiny review and rejecting insufficiently argued appellate claims.
• J.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-10-16
  Father challenged the termination of his parental rights under Florida Statute § 39.806(1)(f), which permits termination based on egregious abuse of a sibling. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, holding that the statute survives strict scrutiny as narrow
• Garcia v. Stillman
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-12
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for an indicative ruling, stating it would clarify its prior summary judgment order to explicitly confirm that the In-Office Restrictions violated the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine.
• Burroughs
  Del.· 2023-08-30
  The Delaware bail system, as reflected in Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code and related rules, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided that courts imp
• v. I.D. Nos. 1906017002
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-06-27
  The Court held that the indefinite detention of an incompetent criminal defendant under Delaware statutes 11 Del. C. §§ 403 and 404 is unconstitutional as applied to defendants unlikely to be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. The statutory release procedure under
• Grace, Inc. v. City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-23
  The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs have standing and are substantially likely to succeed on their claim that the City of Miami engaged in racial gerrymandering.