Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 7, 2020, 4:26 PM EDT) -- A former attorney has asked the Florida Supreme Court to void executive orders that Gov. Ron DeSantis issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic, arguing the governor lacked legal authority to impose the social distancing restrictions on the state's citizens and businesses.
Palm Beach County resident William S. Abramson argued in his filing, entered Tuesday but announced by the court Thursday, that the governor's reliance on the State Emergency Management Act to shut down nonessential businesses and encourage social distancing among residents is misplaced because the law did not contemplate the current public health crisis as a covered emergency.
"The executive orders have no basis in law," Abramson said in his petition for a writ finding that the governor exceeded his authority. "[The governor's] unilateral and arbitrary nature determining what is 'essential' and what isn't is a dangerous precedent."
"Businesses are free to remain closed or require social distancing. Local school boards are vested with the authority to continue 'distance learning.' Major league sports can play in empty stadiums. Citizens are free to remain in their homes. If we allow [the governor] to, in essence, make things up as he goes along, we have tyranny," he added.
Abramson, who accepted a disciplinary revocation of his law license last year while facing three disciplinary cases, said the Emergency Management Act was enacted in 1993 after the state was caught unprepared for Hurricane Andrew the year before, and that its entire purpose is to "facilitate the opening of the state, not closing it."
The law defines a "natural emergency" as being caused by a natural event such as a storm or flood but did not contemplate the virus pandemic as falling under its auspices, he contended. In support of his position, he pointed to requirements for state officials to establish emergency preparedness plans, which he said they did not do in anticipation of this pandemic or after the SARS and H1N1 epidemics in recent years.
"If this statute was intended to cover the current situation, an emergency plan would have been developed," he said. "No such plan exists. The only conclusion is that this statute was never meant to apply to the current situation."
Abramson, who practiced traffic and criminal law for nearly 30 years before losing his license, said he was most recently working at the Cucina Cabana restaurant in North Palm Beach and as a substitute teacher and has lost both jobs during the pandemic. In a phone interview Thursday, he said that he felt a need to take action after seeing individual liberties being taken away by the governor's orders.
"I get it. You should stay home. But don't tell me that my restaurant should have to close," he said. "It's America, we fought for this."
Abramson said many people he knows want to go back to work and do not want to have to beg the government for money. He also said he was troubled by the current situation, in which he sees large corporations, such as chain restaurants, able to stay open and even making more money under the state's sheltering orders, while the mom-and-pop restaurant down the street is closed.
"The government is not here to fix your problems or save you from yourself," he said. "Take care of yourself. Take personal responsibility, and the government can't tell you how to live."
Abramson's suit is not the first to challenge the governor's executive orders. Palm Beach County bartender Debra Henry filed suit May 1 in federal court challenging DeSantis' April 29 decision to loosen restrictions on businesses in the state with the exclusion of those in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.
Henry contended the order is arbitrary and facially unconstitutional because it "would disparately affect some businesses and not other of the same business type" based on "arbitrary county lines."
A spokesman for the governor's office said Thursday that they are reviewing Abramson's petition and would not have comment while the matter is pending.
Abramson is representing himself.
Counsel information for the governor was not immediately available.
The case is Abramson v. DeSantis, case number SC20-646, in the Supreme Court of Florida.
--Editing by Abbie Sarfo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
