FLORIDA HOME BUILDERS ASSN. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DIVISION OF LABOR, BUREAU OF APPRENTICESHIP, APPELLEE
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 Florida Supreme Court struck down a statute requiring administrative approval of apprenticeship programs based on 'need,' holding that the vague standard unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the executive branch in violation of separation of powers principles. The Court reversed the trial court and reinstated the prior statutory language allowing approval whenever applications conformed to regulations.
The statute is invalid because it violates the separation of powers principle. The term 'need' is too vague and susceptible of conflicting applications, allowing the agency to choose among many understandings without guides of accountability, thereby unconstitutionally delegating the power to make law. The prior statutory language is reinstated.
[1] A statute is invalid if it violates the principle of separation of powers by unconstitutionally delegating legislative power to an administrative agency.
[2] Discretionary authority granted to the executive branch of government must be limited and guided by an appropriately detailed legislative statement of standards and 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 intelligence“our state constitution wisely requires that the power to make the law reside exclusively with the legislature”
Establishes the foundational separation of powers principle underlying the Court's holding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapter 77-183 amended Florida's apprenticeship statutes to require Bureau of Apprenticeship approval based on a 'determination of need' rather than t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Agency Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
The circuit court below passed directly upon the validity of a statute. Article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution mandates that we review the decision.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 77-183, Laws of Florida, amending section 446.071, Florida Statutes (1975), and appearing as section 446.071, Florida Statutes (1977), employers could secure state registration of their apprenticeship programs “whenever a demand is made” by filing an application with the Bureau of Apprenticeship and conforming to their regulations. The amendment, however, allows approval only “upon a determination of need” by the bureau.
The appellants (the Florida Home Builders Association and other contractors’ organizations) initiated a court challenge against the statute. The trial court rejected the appellants’ basic contention that the statute unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to an administrative agency.
We agree with the appellants and reverse. The statute is invalid because it violates the principle of separation of powers. Article II, section 3, Fla.Const. Although modern procedural safeguards in the administrative process and the availability of judicial review serve to limit the potential for capricious or arbitrary action by executive agencies, our state constitution wisely requires that the power to make the law reside exclusively with the legislature. Askew v. Cross Key Waterway, No. 52,251 (Fla. Nov. 22, 1978). But for a few exceptions not apposite to this case, discretionary authority granted to the executive branch of government must be limited and guided by an appropriately detailed legislative statement of the standards and policies to be followed. E. g., High Ridge Management Corp. v. State, 354 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1977); Sarasota County, et al. v. Barg, et a1., 302 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1974); Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1968); State v. Atlantic Coast Line R., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969 (1908).
The challenged statute assigns to an administrative agency the duty to accept or reject apprenticeship program applications according to “need.” But the statute does not specify what standards or policies are to guide the agency and neither do the preexisting legislative statements of intent that are scattered through the chapter on apprenticeships.
Standing alone as it does, the term “need” is susceptible of so many conflicting applications that the agency and the courts cannot ascertain the legislative intent. Cf. Dickinson v. State ex rel. Bryant, 227 So. 2d 36, 38 (Fla.1969) (statute requiring that one wishing to open a cemetery demonstrate the “need for a cemetery” and the “need for further facilities” held unconstitutional because it conferred upon the state comptroller “the authority to grant approval to one yet withhold it from another, at whim, and without guides of accountability”). By granting the agency the ability to choose among many different possible understandings of the statute's requirement without guides of accountability, the legislature unconstitutionally delegated the power to make the law.
Accordingly, we hold the provision of Chapter 77-183, Laws of Florida, requiring “a determination of need” to be null and void. The previous statutory language is reinstated. See In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 63 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1953); State ex rel. Spitzer v. Mayo, 129 Fla. 426, 176 So. 434 (1937); Messer v. Jackson, 126 Fla. 678, 171 So. 660 (1936). The judgment in, favor of the appellee is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the appellants.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.A.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e state cites to State ex rel. Boyd v. Green, 355 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1978), as “[a] prime example of the application of the principle of reinstatement.” (Id.) It also references Florida Homebuilders Ass’n v. Division of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship, 367 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1979), for the same proposition. The state cites Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1990), and Smith v. Smathers, 372 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1979), as authority for this court to create a “hybrid” statute containing elements taken from two differe…1 / 2
-
In the Interest of R.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 481 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ts entirely to the whims and caprices of the individual social worker who drafts them. This alone renders it a patently unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. See Florida Home Builders Assn. v. Division of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship, 367 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1979). It is one thing to base severance on abuse, neglect or abandonment; it is quite another to base it solely on breach of a performance agreement, which is the factual situation in the instant case.2 Only by clear and convincing evidence o…
-
Dep't of State v. Martin, 885 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ed discretion. [*458] Id. at 55-56 (citations omitted). Accord Dickinson v. State, 227 So. 2d 36, 37-38 (Fla.1969); High Ridge Mgmt. Corp. v. State, 354 So. 2d 377, 380 (Fla.1977); Fla. Home Builders Ass’n v. Div. of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship, 367 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.1979); In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 509 So. 2d 292, 311 (Fla.1987). Our supreme court has recently reaffirmed Lewis. In Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Sept. 23, 2004), the court unanimously struck down a statute which it…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 56 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1908)
- Doyle Conner v. JOE Hatton, Inc., 216 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1968)
- Sarasota Cnty. v. Barg, 302 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1974)
- Dickinson v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Claude B. Bryant, 227 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1969)
- Messer v. Jackson, 126 Fla. 678 (Fla. 1936)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 63 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1953)
- Lastition v. Lastition, 354 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1977)
- High Ridge Mgmt. Corp. v. State, 354 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Mayo, 129 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1937)