The Effectiveness of Home Rule: A Preemption and Conflict Analysis

Before 1968, local governments in Florida only had the powers specifically given to them by the state. In 1968, the Florida Constitution was changed to give cities and charter counties more power to make their own rules. Then in 1973, the Municipal Home Rules Power Act (MHRPA) was passed, which gave even more power to local governments to do what they need to do to help their residents. This means that unless the state says otherwise, local governments have the right to make their own rules and decisions. As Florida’s population has grown, local governments have had to make more laws and rules to take care of their residents. But there are still some limits to what they can do, and this article is going to explain what those limits are. The MHRPA says that local governments can make their own rules unless the state law says otherwise. There are two ways state law can stop a local rule – if the state law says it’s the only one that can regulate that issue, or if the local rule conflicts with the state law. This is called preemption. Even if a state law doesn’t specifically say it’s the only one that can regulate something, the courts can decide that it is, if it looks like the state law is trying to control that issue. For example, in Florida, a court decided that a county and city couldn’t make a rule that required a power company to bury its lines, because the state law gave a state agency the power to set the rates for the power company, and the court thought that the local rule would make the company spend more money and then it would have to raise its rates. In simple terms, express preemption means that the state has exclusive control over a certain topic and that local governments can’t make their own rules about it. It’s rare for the courts to find that the state has expressed this kind of control. Taxation is one area where the state has clearly said it has control. Because the Constitution protects local governments, if there’s any doubt about whether the state has expressed control, the courts should decide in favor of the local government. This is because voters have given local governments a lot of power to make their own rules to protect their citizens. So, in Florida, the courts usually support local governments unless the state has clearly said they can’t do something. The MHRPA says that a city can make its own laws unless the state specifically says it can’t. The state can stop a city from making a law in two ways – by saying it directly or by making laws that are so all-encompassing that it’s clear they don’t want cities making laws about it. If a city law goes against a state law, it has to be able to work together with the state law without making it useless. The first thing to ask is whether the city law goes against the point of the state law. This keeps the idea that cities should have control over their own laws, but also that the state is in charge in the end. In some court cases, judges have looked at whether local government actions conflict with state laws. For example, in one case a city’s decision to deny a waste facility permit was overturned because it went against a state law promoting the building of waste facilities. However, in another case, a local law banning nudity in businesses was allowed to stand because it didn’t conflict with state laws. Generally, local laws can only be overturned if they go against the purpose or wording of state laws or the state constitution. This has happened when local laws are stricter than state laws, impose harsher penalties, or go against what state laws allow or prohibit. Simply put, local governments can make rules that are stricter than state laws, as long as the state law doesn’t specifically say they can’t. But if the state law sets a penalty for something, the local government can’t make a stricter penalty for the same thing. For example, a city can’t make it illegal to do something if the state law says it’s okay. Local governments have some power to make their own laws, but they can’t go against state laws. If they make a rule that goes against a state law or gives an exemption to a state law without permission, it won’t be allowed. Also, if the state law says how to do something, the local government can’t make a different way to do it unless the state law says it’s okay. In Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Tallahassee Medical Center, Inc., the court said a local law was not allowed because it conflicted with a state law. This shows that local laws can’t go against what state laws say. But in City of Boca Raton v. State, the court said a local law was okay because the state law allowed for different methods. So, whether a local law conflicts with a state law is a complicated question, but it shouldn’t be a problem unless the local law goes against what the state law clearly says. Florida courts have recently ruled in favor of local governments’ authority over certain issues, even when state laws may seem to conflict. In one case, a court allowed Sarasota County to pass a local fireworks regulation ordinance despite a state law regulating fireworks. In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that a local ordinance allowing the impoundment of vehicles involved in misdemeanor drug and prostitution offenses was not prohibited by a state law focused on felonies. These decisions show that local governments can sometimes make their own rules, even if there is a state law on the same topic. The doctrine of implied preemption is used to invalidate local laws that seem to be controlled by the state, even if there’s no specific state law against it. But Florida courts have been cautious about using this doctrine and have rejected it in most cases. They only use it when the state law is so widespread that it shows the state wants to be the only regulator in that area. Only one case has used implied preemption to strike down a local law since a court case called Tallahassee Memorial. In that case, a law requiring a paper ballot to back up electronic voting was invalidated because the state already had detailed laws about how elections should be run, and the court thought it would cause problems to have different rules in different places. Florida courts have supported local government control by removing only the parts of a law that go against state laws, instead of getting rid of the whole law. This is called severability, and it helps keep the original intent of the local law while following state rules. In a court case, the judges said that a county law giving health benefits to domestic partners was mostly okay, but it couldn’t let partners make health decisions for each other like spouses can. They also said that the law had a clause saying that if one part was found invalid, it wouldn’t ruin the whole thing. In another case, the court took out a bad part of a local law, and the law said that if one part was invalid, it wouldn’t ruin the whole thing.
There’s a rule in the Florida Constitution that says only certain agencies can give out penalties, and only as allowed by law. But it’s not clear how that applies to local governments giving financial penalties. In two court cases, the Second District of Florida considered whether local governments can impose fines for code violations on private property. The court ruled that the city of Venice was allowed to seek attorney’s fees for legal services related to condemning unsafe property. But in another case, the court said that the city of Tampa couldn’t impose a daily fine on a property for violating city code, because it didn’t follow the rules set by a state law. In some court cases, local government rules about charging for demolition of private property were overturned because they didn’t follow state law. Some courts thought that these rules were okay, but others didn’t. The courts should consider the bigger picture and make sure local government rules follow the law. These references are like footnotes in a legal document. They point to other court cases and laws that are related to the topic being discussed. They help lawyers and judges understand the context and history of the law. These are court cases where the courts had to decide if state laws should override local laws. In one case, the court said that the state laws were not strong enough to cancel out the local laws. In another case, the court said that a county law about giving benefits to domestic partners was allowed, even though there are state laws about marriage.

The people who wrote this article are a judge and a law clerk who work at the First District Court of Appeal. They are members of the City, County and Local Government Section of the Florida Bar. This section helps lawyers who work with city, county, and local governments.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-effectiveness-of-home-rule-a-preemption-and-conflict-analysis/