Florida Supreme Court calls for 50 new judges
Justices certify the need for 23 new circuit, 25 new county, and two new judges for the Sixth DCA
The Florida Supreme Court has certified the need for 23 additional circuit court judgeships and 25 more for the county courts in its annual certification opinion.
Acting December 12 in Case No. SC2024-1721, the justices also identified the need for two additional district court judgeships on the recently created Sixth District Court of Appeal.
The ask for 50 new judgeships comes on the heels of the Legislature creating nine new judicial positions last session.
While certifying no need to decrease the number of circuit, county, or DCA judgeships, the court acknowledges excess judicial capacity in the Second DCA and recommends the Legislature address that over time by reducing the number of statutorily authorized judgeships based on attrition, without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position involuntarily.
Using a quantitative and qualitative judicial workload assessment involving the participation of more than 900 trial court judges representing all 20 judicial circuits, the court certified the need for 23 new circuit court judges, distributed as follows:
- One additional circuit court judge each for the First, Fourth, Ninth, 12th, 14th, 18th, and 19th circuits;
- Two additional circuit court judges each for the Seventh, 10th, and 15th circuits;
- Three additional circuit court judges for the Fifth Circuit; and
- Seven additional circuit court judges in the 20th Circuit.
The court also certified the need for 25 new county court judges, as follows:
- One additional county court judge each for Walton, Clay, Nassau, Hernando, Lake, Marion, Sumter, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Manatee, Hillsborough, Bay, and Lee counties;
- Two additional county court judges each for Duval and Palm Beach counties; and
- Seven additional county court judges for Miami-Dade County.
“To arrive at our certifications, the Court accounted for the relative needs of each circuit and county court as reflected in the weighted caseload methodology, but we have not certified the need for the full complement of judges indicated by that methodology,” the court said. “Instead, based on several considerations, the Court has chosen to adopt an approach that is more incremental but still reasonable and fair.”
The justices said they recognize that funding new judgeships is a significant investment, and “we are mindful of the Legislature’s challenge in addressing myriad state budget priorities with limited resources.”
The justices also said the court system’s capacity to absorb additional judges at one time is limited by factors such as courthouse space, with expansion of courtrooms and chambers subject to the availability of county funding.
“The Court also recognizes that establishment of new judgeships results in operational and potential fiscal impacts for justice-partner entities such as the clerks of the circuit courts, state attorneys, and public defenders,” the court said, adding the court system requires some time to establish workload trends using its newly adopted case weights.
“It is for this same reason that the Court is necessarily cautious about certifying the need to decrease judgeships, as we are not yet able to determine trends that would indicate a sustained surplus in judicial capacity,” the court said.
The court said it is committed to ensuring that the allocation of any additional resources to the judicial branch budget results in operational outcomes that benefit users of the court system.
“Although there is not an increase in forecasted filings, the revised case weights resulting from the comprehensive trial court workload assessment demonstrate that many cases have become more complex and require additional judicial engagement and time to resolve —warranting additional judges,” the court said. “If the Legislature elects to fund the judgeships certified in this opinion as an initial step in addressing the increased workload of circuit and county courts, this Court will use the new case weights to monitor the impact of the new resources and evaluate outstanding need in subsequent certification opinions under article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution.”
Sixth DCA
The Sixth District requested two additional judgeships. In its request, Chief Judge Dan Traver noted that the DCA began its work on January 1, 2023, with nearly 1,700 transferred cases from two other district courts, and that filings in the district court continue to grow. According to the chief judge, the current judge complement is insufficient to keep pace with this growing workload.
“Additionally, the district court is currently supported by a temporarily assigned appellate judge from a neighboring district court, an assignment that is not a long-term solution to the district court’s workload challenges,” the court said.
Chief Judge Traver also noted that despite high caseloads, the judges and staff have made “every effort” to properly execute their responsibilities.
“But they do so knowing that trying to absorb this increased workload limits the time available for the consideration of each case and the writing of opinions,” the court said. “This Court shares the concerns of the chief judge about the potential for negative effects resulting from continued high workload and strained judicial resources. We find the workload for the Sixth District and other secondary factors cited in the request from the chief judge persuasive.”
As addressed in previous certifications of need for additional judges, the court said it recognizes excess judicial capacity in the Second DCA based on the addition of the Sixth DCA, corresponding jurisdictional boundary changes in three existing districts, and the policy decision not to require judges to relocate.
However, the Court continues to recommend that this excess capacity be addressed over time and suggested lawmakers in the upcoming session consider enacting legislation that provides for a reduction in the number of statutorily authorized district court judgeships based on attrition and without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position involuntarily. Such legislation, the court said, could specify that, upon each occurrence of an event that otherwise would have resulted in a vacancy in the office of judge of the Second District, the number of authorized judges be reduced by one.
“We recommend that eventually, after attrition, there be 13 judges authorized for the Second District,” the court said.
There are currently 15 judges on the Second DCA.
