After the 1999 Amendments to Administrative Procedure Act, One Aspect of Consolidated-Tomoka Still R

The Florida Legislature and courts have been arguing about how much power government agencies should have to make rules. The Legislature limited agency rulemaking power in 1996 and 1999, but recent court decisions suggest that agencies should have more freedom. The 1996 change said that agencies can only make rules that relate to their specific powers and duties, not just because it relates to the law it’s based on. The Legislature also said that agencies can’t make rules based on general laws or policies. The Legislature added the same rule to another law to make sure their intention was clear. In 1996, the law changed how rules and regulations are upheld, and a court case upheld rules made by the St. Johns River Water Management District. But in 1999, lawmakers changed the law again to clarify the rulemaking standard and reject the court’s decision. They removed the term “particular” from the law and added language to make sure agencies can only make rules that relate specifically to their powers and duties. This was to prevent courts from focusing on the word “particular” in the future. A commentator says that a 1999 change to the law means a famous court case won’t last, but a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court suggests it will. The court case reminds us of the importance of allowing government agencies to make rules. The Florida Supreme Court made a decision in the Investment Corp. case that an agency can issue a declaratory statement at the same time it announces its intention to make new rules. This was a controversial decision because it went against a previous ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal. The case started when some companies wanted to know who got to keep money from uncashed tickets and bets at race tracks. The court’s decision was based on how to interpret the law and whether to stick to the exact wording or consider other factors. The Florida Supreme Court in Investment Corp. endorsed the First District’s interpretation of the rulemaking standard in the wake of the 1996 amendments to the APA. The court emphasized that the legislature should not micromanage administrative agencies and should defer to their interpretations of statutes. However, recent changes to the APA restrict agency rulemaking authority, creating a conflict between legislative restrictions and judicial deference to agency interpretation of statutes. This suggests that the courts are not in favor of the legislature micromanaging executive branch agencies. The case Save the Manatee Club, Inc. v. Southwest Florida Water Management District challenged a rule allowing exemptions from certain permitting criteria. The court decided that the exemptions were not authorized by the legislature, so they were invalid. This decision shows that the legislature wants to closely control what agencies can do, which some people support and others criticize. In Florida, there’s a debate about how much power government agencies should have. Some people want to limit agency power, but the courts have been giving agencies a lot of leeway. This might lead to changes in the law in the future. It’s a complicated issue that’s still being argued.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/after-the-1999-amendments-to-administrative-procedure-act-one-aspect-of-consolidated-tomoka-still-r/