SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
21-1748
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Oct 6, 2021Background
- In August 2021 the Florida Department of Health promulgated Emergency Rule 64DER21-12 addressing COVID-19 in schools; it allowed masks but required schools to permit parental opt-outs from mask requirements.
- The Department justified the emergency rule by citing rising COVID-19 (Delta) cases and the imminent start of the school year.
- The School Board of Miami-Dade County filed a petition for review challenging the opt-out provision.
- After the petition was filed the Department repealed that emergency rule and promulgated a different emergency rule addressing school COVID-19 protocols.
- The Department moved to dismiss the School Board’s petition as moot; the School Board argued the case should survive under the collateral-consequences doctrine (primarily potential entitlement to attorney’s fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after repeal of challenged rule | Repeal does not moot because collateral consequences persist | Repeal renders challenge moot because judicial relief would have no effect | Court: Repeal generally moots the challenge; petition dismissed |
| Collateral-consequences exception to mootness | Attorney’s fees are collateral legal consequences that preserve jurisdiction | No applicable collateral consequence here to save the case | Court: Exception not satisfied; fees do not preserve jurisdiction in this case |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under §120.595(3) | §120.595(3) authorizes fee recovery for a successful challenge | §120.595(3) applies only to challenges brought under §120.56, not to direct judicial review under §120.68 | Court: §120.595(3) does not authorize fees for proceedings pursued under §120.68; no fee entitlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Curless v. County of Clay, 395 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (repeal of challenged rule typically renders the challenge moot)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992) (mootness exception exists where collateral legal consequences flow from the issue)
- Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (collateral-consequences exception narrowly applied)
- Dep’t of Health v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., 259 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (fee entitlement may constitute a collateral consequence)
- Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (recognizing fee entitlement can be a collateral consequence)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1999) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Dade County v. Pena, 664 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1995) (attorney’s fees are in derogation of the common law and require a statute to authorize them)
- Fla. Democratic Party v. Hood, 884 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (district courts review emergency rules under §120.68 without intervening administrative proceedings)