BLACK VOTERS MATTER CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE, INC., ET AL.
v.
CORD BYRD, ETC., ET AL.
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 all writs doctrine does not authorize the Florida Supreme Court to intervene in an ongoing appellate proceeding when the Court does not currently have jurisdiction and it is speculative whether jurisdiction will exist in the future.
[1] The all writs doctrine is not an independent basis for jurisdiction but is restricted to preserving jurisdiction already invoked or protecting jurisdiction likely to be i…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the doctrine of all writs is not an independent basis for this Court's jurisdiction, but instead is restricted to preserving jurisdiction that has already been invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely will be invoked in the future.”
Majority opinion explaining the limits of the all writs doctrine
Petitioners sought a constitutional writ from the Florida Supreme Court to intervene in the First District Court of Appeal's consideration of an appea…
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 Congressional Redistricting cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2022
CASE NO.: SC22-685 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 1D22-1470; 372022CA000666XXXXXX
BLACK VOTERS MATTER
CAPACITY BUILDING
INSTITUTE, INC., ET AL. vs.
CORD BYRD, ETC., ET AL.
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
Petitioners’ request for a constitutional writ is denied. “[T]he doctrine of all writs is not an independent basis for this Court’s jurisdiction,” but instead “is restricted to preserving jurisdiction that has already been invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely will be invoked in the future.” Roberts v. Brown, 43 So. 3d 673, 677 (Fla. 2010). Here Petitioners ask this Court to intervene in the First District Court of Appeal’s ongoing consideration of an appeal of an order imposing a temporary injunction. At this time, this Court does not have jurisdiction over that matter. And it is speculative whether the First District’s eventual decision will provide an appropriate basis for this Court’s exercise of discretionary review— meaning that we cannot say that it is likely that there is any jurisdiction to protect. Assuming without deciding that this Court would have the authority in these circumstances to issue a constitutional writ, we decline to exercise such authority. All pending motions are denied and no motion for rehearing will be entertained.
POLSTON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. CANADY, C.J., and LAWSON, J., recused.
CASE NO.: SC22-685 Page Two
LABARGA, J., dissenting.
I dissent to the denial of the petitioners’ request for a constitutional writ. As observed in the majority’s order, the all writs doctrine “ ‘is restricted to preserving jurisdiction that has already been invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely will be invoked in the future.’ Roberts v. Brown, 43 So. 3d 673, 677 (Fla. 2010).” (Emphasis added.)
Currently pending in the First District Court of Appeal is the State’s appeal of the temporary injunction granted by the circuit court. Ultimately, the district court will issue a ruling on the merits of the temporary injunction. Once that decision is rendered, as stated on page six of their all writs petition, the petitioners intend to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction.
At that juncture, this Court will determine whether to exercise its discretion to review the district court’s merits decision, and the all writs petition identifies three possible bases under article V, section (3)(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution for this Court to do so.
CASE NO.: SC22-685 Page Three
Given this Court’s history of considering congressional redistricting cases, I cannot forecast that we will lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s merits decision. At stake here is the mandate of 62.9% of Florida voters who voted in 2010 for one of what are commonly known as the Fair Districts Amendments to the Florida Constitution—by any measure of comparison, 62.9% of the vote is an overwhelming margin.1 Dep’t of State, https://results.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11 /2/2010&DATAMODE= (last visited May 31, 2022).
As we have previously done, see League of Women Voters of Florida v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014), this Court should utilize its all writs authority here.
1. The Fair Districts Amendment relating to congressional
redistricting was Amendment 6 on the 2010 general election ballot and was titled “Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting.” Amendment 5 on the same ballot related to state legislative redistricting was passed by 62.6% of voters. See November 2, 2010 General Election, Fla. Dep’t of State, https://results.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11 /2/2010&DATAMODE= (last visited May 31, 2022).
CASE NO.: SC22-685 Page Four
Consequently, I dissent. A True Copy Test:
so Served:
MICHAEL R. BEATO
CARLOS ALBERTO REY
THOMAS A. ZEHNDER
ANDY BARDOS
DANIEL W. BELL
CHRISTINA A. FORD
HARLEEN K. GAMBHIR
HENRY C. WHITAKER
FREDERICK S. WERMUTH
BRADLEY R. MCVAY
GRAHAM W. WHITE
MOHAMMAD O. JAZIL
DANIEL E. NORDBY
JEFFREY PAUL DESOUSA
JOHN M. DEVANEY
DAVID M. COSTELLO
JONATHAN P. HAWLEY
ASHLEY E. DAVIS
JOSEPH N. POSIMATO
ABHA KHANNA
HON. KRISTINA SAMUELS, CLERK
HON. GWEN MARSHALL, CLERK
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. Corrine Brown, 43 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2010)
- The League OF Women Voters OF Fla. v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014)