Federal judge dismisses Gainesville Residents United lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the bill creating the GRU Authority

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – The remaining claims in Gainesville Residents United’s federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of HB 1645 on First Amendment grounds were dismissed yesterday by Judge Allen Winsor.

The federal lawsuit, filed by Gainesville Residents United in July, claimed that HB 1645, which created the GRU Authority, infringes the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, violates Florida’s special law and referendum requirements, impermissibly grants legislative powers to unelected officials, diminishes Plaintiffs’ right to vote, and impairs Plaintiff Joe Little’s municipal bond contract.

The plaintiffs’ First Amendment objection is based on this section of HB 1645: “The Authority and the CEO/GM, in making all policy and operational decisions over the affairs of the utility system as contemplated under the provisions of this act, shall consider only pecuniary factors and utility industry best practices standards, which do not include consideration of the furtherance of social, political, or ideological interests.”

The Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit against Governor DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, Secretary of State Cord Byrd, and the City of Gainesville (as a “nominal” defendant). They voluntarily dismissed their claims against Moody and Byrd in October.

Recent developments in the lawsuit

In December, Judge Winsor dismissed all claims against the Governor, ruling that the Governor has 11th Amendment immunity, specifically finding that the exception for officials who have “‘some connection’ with the enforcement of the challenged law” does not apply. In the same ruling, Judge Winsor ordered the plaintiffs to show why the claims against the City of Gainesville should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Winsor wrote that the Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasized that the City has no control over Authority operations, thus, “it appears Plaintiffs do not have standing for any claim against the City and that the court lacks jurisdiction.”

In the new ruling, filed yesterday, Winsor dismissed all remaining claims in the case, writing, “Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ response… I conclude I must dismiss the federal claims.” He also dismissed any state claims, concluding that he should not address them in federal court.

Free-speech vs. petition claims

Winsor wrote that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they had not demonstrated any actual or imminent injury. He wrote that the plaintiffs seemed to accept his previous ruling that they lacked a free-speech injury; in a footnote in their January response, the plaintiffs wrote, “It is true that, under the HB 1645, Plaintiffs remain free to say anything they want on any topic. The problem is that no one is listening!” However, the plaintiffs’ response argued that Judge Winsor had misconstrued their petition clause claim.

Winsor wrote, “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that [HB 1645] prohibits them from expressing their personal grievances to the government or anyone else, so they have not plausibly alleged an actual or impending injury under the Petition Clause… The fact that Plaintiffs have previously petitioned politically responsive officials on matters of social, political, or ideological interest and expressed the intent to do so again is not enough to establish that their inability to do so in the future is ‘actual or imminent.'”

“The question is whether these Plaintiffs have alleged injury… They have not.”

The plaintiffs also argued, “If Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge HB 1645, no one has standing to do so.” However, Winsor wrote, “The question is whether these Plaintiffs have alleged injury, traceability, and redressability in this case. They have not.”

Winsor’s order closes the cases, with federal claims against the City of Gainesville and the Governor dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, state-law claims against the Governor dismissed without prejudice based on 11th Amendment immunity, and state-law claims against the City of Gainesville dismissed without prejudice in the court’s discretion.