J. Hyatt Brown, Etc., et al. v. George Firestone, etc., et al.

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court considered a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the Governor's vetoes of provisions in Florida's 1979 General Appropriations Act. The court addressed the relationship between the Governor's line-item veto authority and the Legislature's power to attach qualifications or restrictions to appropriations under the Florida Constitution. It also considered petitioners' standing and the propriety of exercising original jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Citizen-taxpayers may challenge the constitutionality of gubernatorial actions affecting the relationship between executive veto power and the Legislature's taxing and spending authority without demonstrating a special injury.
2. Mandamus is an appropriate original remedy to obtain an immediate determination of the constitutionality of provisions in a general appropriations act when uncertainty concerning public expenditures hampers governmental operations and the issues are narrow legal questions.
3. A qualification or restriction attached to an appropriation is constitutionally permissible only if it directly and rationally relates to the purpose of the appropriation and is a major motivating factor behind the appropriation.
4. The Governor's veto power is negative and may nullify or suspend legislative intent, but may not alter or amend legislative intent. A Governor who vetoes a qualification or restriction in a general appropriations bill must also veto the appropriation to which it relates, unless the qualification or restriction itself constitutes a specific appropriation.
5. A specific appropriation is an identifiable, integrated fund allocated for a specified purpose; in the context of a qualification or restriction, it is the smallest identifiable fund to which the qualification or restriction is directly and logically related.
6. The proviso directing the Department of Corrections to phase back the Glades Correctional Institution inmate population was not a valid qualification because it was not rationally related to the purpose of the major-institutions appropriation. The Governor's veto was also invalid because the proviso did not itself contain an identifiable specific appropriation and the related appropriation was not vetoed.
7. The Governor validly vetoed the proviso directing $2,613,142 in each fiscal year to the teaching-hospital program because the proviso constituted a specific appropriation; the related expense appropriation was therefore reduced by that amount in each year.
8. The Division of Corporations proviso was invalid because it suspended, pro tanto, the operation of section 216.231, Florida Statutes, by allowing deficiency funds to be released without the approvals required by that statute. The Governor's veto was invalid because the $100,000 reference was not an identifiable specific appropriation.
9. The proviso establishing first-priority park projects was a valid legislative qualification, and the Governor validly vetoed it because the $2,020,000 identified in the proviso constituted a specific appropriation.
10. Public Education Capital Outlay funds may be used to purchase library books and scientific equipment.
11. The provisos appropriating $2,500,000 annually for community-college library books or scientific equipment and $10,000,000 annually for state-university library books were specific appropriations that the Governor validly vetoed.
12. Future mandamus proceedings challenging gubernatorial vetoes should be limited to narrow legal issues not requiring extensive fact-finding; challenges to the constitutionality of appropriations-act provisions should generally proceed through declaratory judgment actions in circuit court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioners had standing as citizen-taxpayers to challenge the Governor's vetoes.
2. Whether mandamus was an appropriate vehicle for an original proceeding challenging the constitutionality of provisions in a general appropriations act and the validity of gubernatorial vetoes.
3. What constitutional standards govern the Legislature's authority to attach qualifications or restrictions to appropriations and the Governor's authority to veto them under article III, section 8(a), of the Florida Constitution.
4. Whether the provisos concerning the Glades Correctional Institution and Division of Corporations deficiency funds violated article III, section 12, by addressing subjects other than appropriations or suspending existing substantive law.
5. Whether the provisos concerning the University of South Florida Medical Center, park-project priorities, community-college library books and equipment, and state-university library books were specific appropriations that the Governor could veto.
6. Whether Public Education Capital Outlay funds could constitutionally be used for library books and scientific equipment.

Disposition

other