Crist v. Ervin, 56 So. 3d 745

Trial court ruled that several civil filing-fee provisions directing funds to the general-revenue fund were unconstitutional taxes.
The challenged statutes directed portions of civil filing fees to the general revenue fund (various sections in 2009 Florida Statutes).
The trial court concluded the fees funded unrelated government activities and violated access-to-courts guarantees and due-process/equal-protection rights.
The court severed the offending provisions, enjoined their enforcement, and ordered the state to reflect the injunction in financial operations.
On appeal, the State contends the statutes are facially and as-applied constitutional because the legislature appropriates more to justice administration than the fees deposited into general revenue.
Appellants Governor Crist and others appealed after the circuit court’s declaratory judgment and injunctions were entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directing filing-fee portions to general revenue is an unconstitutional tax on access to courts	State claims not a tax; funds support justice administration when appropriated	Appellees contend it is an unconstitutional tax that reduces court access	Not a facial tax; constitutional as applied
Whether the statutes violate Article I, section 21 (access to courts)	Statutes transfer fees to general revenue, denying access	Filing-fee funds are fungible and portion funded justice administration	Statutes uphold access; not unconstitutional on their face
Whether the funding structure violates Article V, section 14	Underfunding shown; statutes deprive proper funding	Legislature may allocate funds via filing fees; funding exceeds fees	Statutes do not violate section 14; permissible funding mechanism
Whether the challenged statutes are unconstitutional as applied due to alleged underfunding	Courts underfunded; statutes should address funding	Record shows more is spent on justice administration than fees deposited	Not supported by competent substantial evidence; not unconstitutional as applied

Lane v. Chiles, 698 So.2d 260 (Fla.1997) (rational relationship test for state statutes)
Flood v. State ex rel. Homeland Co., 117 So.2d 385 (Fla.1928) (docket-fee tax invalid as funding general county purposes)
Farabee v. Board of Trustees, 254 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971) (law-library funding allowed as justice administration cost)
State v. City of Pori Orange, 650 So.2d 1 (Fla.1994) (tax vs. user-fee distinction for court funding)
Flood v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla.2005) (facial unconstitutionality of a fee used for general purposes)
City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla.2005) (constitutional upholding of rational-relationship test)
LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.1986) (jury-fee as unconstitutional tax; funding implications)
Fox v. Hunt, 619 So.2d 1364 (Ala.1993) (state funding of judiciary validates jury-fee underfunding rationale)