Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
When the Florida Supreme Court throws out a law passed by the Legislature, the Legislature complains. The leaders of the legislative branch holler about "activist judges" who need to be kicked off the bench.
But when the Supreme Court upholds the Legislature, you don't hear a peep. No word of praise for "judicial restraint."
Just like finicky house cats and newspaper columnists, the Legislature finds it easy to complain and against its nature to praise.
On Feb. 12, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a state law that allows the Department of Agriculture to come onto your property and destroy your citrus trees, if your trees stand within 1,900 feet of a tree known to be infected with citrus canker.
That's more than a third of a mile. If somebody else's citrus tree that far away from yours gets infected, state agents can come onto your property and cut down your Valencia orange or ruby red grapefruit tree, even if your trees are perfectly healthy. You have no appeal, unless you can prove they measured the distance wrong.
Now, let's make it clear. This is a harsh law, rammed through the Legislature to protect the citrus industry.
And I am among those who think the Department of Agriculture did not present a convincing case for 1,900 feet, as opposed to a lesser distance. Try to pin them down, and all you get is "because we said so."
And yet, the Supreme Court did the right thing in upholding the law.
This is a key point about how courts are supposed to work: Not liking a law is not a legal basis for a court to throw it out. The courts' job is not to second-guess the Legislature on whether a law is good idea.
Citrus canker, a bacterial infection, was first discovered in Florida in 1914. There have been repeated outbreaks over the years. As late as the 1980s, the state's policy was to destroy all citrus trees that were within 125 feet of an infected tree.
But the 125-foot rule did not work. After further study, a state task force recommended the new 1,900-foot rule. They said that distance would capture 95 percent of infected trees and would halt the spread of canker. In 2002, the Legislature adopted that advice as a state law.
Property owners in South Florida sued and found a sympathetic local judge. After hearing additional scientific evidence, he ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The case went up through the appeals courts until it reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Barbara Pariente, no stranger to being called names in the Legislature, wrote the unanimous majority decision.
Pariente found that fighting canker is a valid use of the state's "police power," which can be wielded to promote the "health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public."
Yes, there is a time when the courts can second-guess the Legislature: when a law intrudes on the basic rights of citizens under the Constitution. In such cases, the courts must apply a "strict scrutiny" to make sure there is a "compelling state interest."
But the rest of the time, for run-of-the-mill laws, the Legislature's reasoning is none of the courts' affair. All the Legislature has to do is demonstrate a "reasonable relationship" between the law in question and the problem the law is supposed to address.
That was exactly the situation with the canker law, Pariente wrote. Nothing about the law violates citizens' constitutional right of due process. The local court "improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Legislature."
Pariente concluded: "This court is required to uphold laws passed by the Legislature that meet the requirements of the state and federal constitutions. ... We must defer to the Legislature's evaluation of the relevant scientific evidence and to the Legislature's choice of means to eradicate citrus canker."
As I said, I think that the Department of Agriculture never showed a valid basis for its 1,900-foot rule and that the Legislature rushed to adopt the law because big agribusiness wanted it.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled with restraint. Because nobody in Tallahassee is going to hold a parade in the court's honor, I figured it was worth giving it a mention.