Florida Supreme Court justices offer rare glimpse inside the bench at Bar Convention
'We are governed by the bargain that was struck by the Legislature and signed by the governor, or in the case of the Constitution, the bargain that has been ratified by the people'
Justice Renatha Francis, left, said one thing she admires most about her colleagues, is their professionalism. ‘We all really work together really well, and we work together as a team, and even in cases where we don’t always agree, the disagreements are not disagreeable.’ Also pictured is Justice Meredith Sasso who considers the executive branch experience she shares with several justices one of the court’s greatest strengths.
Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, with his calm, unfailingly polite demeanor, is the consensus builder.
Justice Charles Canady, the court’s senior member, has a tell when he’s getting prickly during oral arguments — a raised index finger.
Justice Meredith Sasso, the newest member, considers the executive branch experience she shares with several justices one of the court’s greatest strengths.
Discussing everything from their judicial philosophy to tips for more effective advocacy, Florida’s Supreme Court justices marked the Bar’s 75th anniversary with a rare joint appearance that offered an even rarer glimpse of the court’s inner workings.
President Roland Sanchez-Medina, and President-elect Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes moderated the June 26 “Keynote Discussion With the Florida Supreme Court,” a highlight of the 2025 Annual Florida Bar Convention in Boca Raton.
“We want to have a frank discussion with the court,” said Sanchez-Medina, a Miami transactional lawyer. “I wanted to make this as informal and educational as possible.”
“Hopefully,” added Baker-Barnes, a board-certified civil trial lawyer from West Palm Beach, “part of what we accomplish today is just giving you all a broader perspective of what the court does, their roles, and how they manage those roles and responsibilities.”
For more than an hour, the justices described everything from a “a day in the life,” and tips for a more persuasive oral argument, to their core beliefs.
Justice John C. Couriel, a Miami native, double Harvard graduate, and former federal prosecutor — considered by his colleagues to be the court’s most polished speaker — was the first to discuss his judicial philosophy.
“Most approaches to constitutional interpretation could be understood as competing attempts to resolve the ambiguity that oftentimes exists in the constitutional text,” Sanchez-Medina asked him. “How should these ambiguities be resolved?”
Resolving ambiguity isn’t the province of constitutional law, it’s “living with” ambiguity, Couriel said.
“For me, that means having a tremendous amount of faith in the democratic project,” he said. “And what I mean specifically is that the words of constitutional text, and the words of statute, are what governs us in a free society.”
That doesn’t mean the “inchoate” wishes of a legislature or the “expressed” wishes of a single lawmaker, Couriel stressed.
Incoming President Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes and outgoing President Roland Sanchez-Medina, Jr., moderated the June 26 “Keynote Discussion With the Florida Supreme Court,” a highlight of the 2025 Annual Florida Bar Convention in Boca Raton.
“We are governed by the bargain that was struck by the Legislature and signed by the governor, or in the case of the Constitution, the bargain that has been ratified by the people,” he said.
Inhabiting that ambiguity means seeking constraints — not looking for “the ghost in the machine,” Couriel said.
The question, Couriel said, reminds him of his favorite debate proposition, whether the spirit of the law or the letter of the law should take precedence.
“And it’s funny, because I cherish that, and as I get older, I kind of realize that the spirit of the law is its letter, and to the extent that there is tension between the two, what you’re trying to figure out is what constraint is there for us.”
Baker-Barnes pressed him further.
“The Florida Supreme Court has said that its approach to interpreting the Constitution reflects a commitment to the supremacy of text principle,” she said. “How does that principle relate to originalism and why not just give the constitutional text the broadest interpretation that the text will support?”
“What does broad mean?” Couriel countered. “I’m not sure that those things are opposite.”
Giving “effect to the original understanding of the text,” Couriel said, merely means respecting the bargain he described.
“All that we’re really saying is that there was a bargain that was struck, that there is a constraint on action…that is embodied in this text, whether it’s statute or the Constitution,” he said. “It isn’t broad, it isn’t narrow, it is what it is, that’s the deal.”
Sanchez-Medina turned next to Justice Jamie Grosshans. Raised in Mississippi, Grosshans was serving on the Fifth District Court of Appeal when she joined the Supreme Court in 2020. Previously, she served as an Orange County judge in the Ninth Judicial Circuit.
“Can you talk about your philosophy, philosophy as a judge, or judging?” Sanchez-Medina said. “What is your view of the proper role of a judge in our legal system, and why is this particularly important?”
Grosshans said she first considered a judicial philosophy when, as a five or six-year lawyer, she listened to a speaker at a voluntary bar event discuss public service.
Grosshans says she gave it a great deal of consideration.
“Becoming a judge takes a lot of work, because you don’t have time to decide the kind of judge you’ll be once you’re already on the bench, that’s something that has to happen before,” she said.
Grosshans concluded that a judge is someone who serves “a very limited role,” someone who interprets and applies the law, “not someone who makes it.”
The limits are crucial, Grosshans said, because they provide stability in a system built on separation of powers.
“Frankly, it’s not limited to judges,” she said. “Any time the branches exceed their authority and power; it can cause just complete disarray.”
Justice John C. Couriel confers with Justice Jamie Grosshans. Grosshans said a judge is someone who serves ‘a very limited role,’ someone who interprets and applies the law, ‘not someone who makes it.’ The limits are crucial, Grosshans said, because they provide stability in a system built on separation of powers. ‘Frankly, it’s not limited to judges. Any time the branches exceed their authority and power; it can cause just complete disarray.’
Sanchez-Medina said he wanted to hear from the court’s senior member, Justice Canady — a Lakeland native and Yale Law graduate who joined the court in 2008 — because of his extensive public service. A former state lawmaker and congressman, Canady also served as general counsel to Gov. Jeb Bush.
“So, the question is, what weight, if any, do you give to how much the people of Florida have come to rely on precedent in deciding whether to recede from it or not?” Sanchez-Medina asked.
Canady said the court gives “a lot of weight” to precedent, and even greater weight when there are “reliance interests.”
“We take our precedent seriously,” he said. “Even in the absence of reliance interests, we have to have a very good reason to depart from what’s already been decided.”
A reliance interest should be stronger than a mere wish to maintain the status quo, Canady stressed.
“My view is there needs to be a very concrete reliance interest, not just the hope that that would continue, but something where people changed their position on the basis of their reliance,” he said.
Commercial and business law cases are the most common example, Canady said.
“Where people actually entered into agreements based on one understanding of the law, and then if that’s changed, then that can disrupt their legitimate reliance interests,” he said.
Justice Sasso, who became the court’s junior member in 2023, was asked how her professional experience influenced her “in her current role.”
Leaving private practice to become Gov. Rick Scott’s chief deputy general counsel in 2016 was pivotal, Sasso said. That’s when she realized that being driven to win cases risked developing a “myopic view” of the law.
“As a private practitioner, I wanted to win a case,” she said. “When you step into the general counsel’s office, now, a decision you make in a certain area affects policy across the state, in a kind of ripple effect that you might not appreciate.”
The experience gave her a “more holistic” view that she relies on today, she said.
“Although we have discrete cases in a discrete area of the law, things that we say in an opinion in a tort case might affect how breach of contract law is interpreted,” she said. “And so, being able to think about the law coherently, as we like to say…is something that I learned in the governor’s office in a way that I just don’t think I would have gained from private practice.”
Justice Renatha Francis, the first Jamaica-born justice, was asked to describe the daily life of a Supreme Court justice. Before she served as a trial judge in the 15th and 11th judicial circuits, Francis clerked at the First District Court of Appeal for six years.
Widowed shortly after being appointed to the Supreme Court in 2022, Francis said she is a “single mom,” who begins a typical day with a phone call to her staff attorneys as soon as she drops her children at school.
After that, she said, she can usually be found typing draft opinions on a home office computer until well past 10 p.m.
“It’s a lot of research, it’s a lot of writing, it’s a lot of reading, all of which I absolutely enjoy,” she said. “And there’s a lot of collaboration back and forth, both with my staff, and to the extent that we need to talk about different things that are bothering us, with the other justices as well.”
Otherwise, Francis says she’s traveling to countless public appearances, another demanding aspect of an “intense” job that “I would not trade for anything.”
Asked to describe how her colleagues influence her, Francis recalled being impressed with opinions by Justice Canady, and former Justice Ricky Polston, when she was a lawyer with the First DCA.
One thing she admires most about her colleagues, is their professionalism, Francis said.
“We all really work together really well, and we work together as a team, and even in cases where we don’t always agree, the disagreements are not disagreeable,” she said. “Nobody takes it personally and so I really appreciate that.”
Justice Jorge Labarga, Florida’s first Cuban-born justice, is a former prosecutor, assistant public defender, and 15th Judicial Circuit judge who joined the court in 2009. Known in recent years for his lone dissents, Labarga is the first to defend the court’s collegiality.
Asked to describe how the court divides its workload, Labarga noted that cases are assigned to justices randomly, “the way circuit judges are assigned cases.”
Justices often vote the same day as oral arguments, “so we know who has the majority,” he said. After that, draft opinions take time to craft, he said.
“And then I’ll have to say, when my opinion leaves my chambers, it looks like an Italian stallion, and by the time they get through with it, it looks like a camel,” he quipped. “So sometimes you got to give and take and save some things for another day.”
Labarga is a good collaborator, Grosshans interjected.
“So, one thing I appreciate about this court and this process, is that everyone is very good about holding those opinions loosely and remembering that we are writing for the people of Florida, and that we are writing as a court and not as individuals,” she said.
Sanchez-Medina asked the panel to offer tips for making a successful oral argument.
“Number one, be focused,” Canady said. “You’ve got to focus on what is going to move the court in your direction and you have to do it in a way that is respectful of the other side, and you have to avoid distractions from what you should be focusing on.”
The most persuasive litigants strive for “lucid brevity,” Canady said.
“It’s not about showing how smart that you are about something,” he said. “It’s about being focused on the issues that will decide the case.”
Don’t stray too far from the briefs, Muñiz warned.
“Charles didn’t mention his biggest pet peeve, which is when people bring up cases that they didn’t cite in their briefs,” he said.
Canady agreed.
“Worse than citing a case that is not cited in the brief is raising an issue, presenting an argument that was not presented in the brief,” he said. “I really don’t like that.”
It’s easy to tell when Canady is displeased, Francis quipped.
“You can tell, when the finger goes up, beware,” she said.
Know the weaknesses in your argument and answer the court’s questions directly, Labarga advised.
“Prepare hard for your weakest point, because that’s where we’re going,” he said. “You can’t just dance around it, because we’re going to come right back to it again.”
The best attorneys know how to adapt their arguments, Couriel said.
“At oral argument what you’re being asked is to listen very closely,” he said. “The truly great lawyers are the ones who make it very clear that they’ve been listening very carefully.”
Noting that cases are extensively briefed, Baker-Barnes asked justices to describe what role oral arguments play in forming their decision.
“We’re human beings, so naturally, I think, we maybe lean one way or the other after reading the brief,” Baker-Barnes said. “Does oral argument really change the game?”
Couriel was first to respond.
“I’m not really of the philosophy that I use my questions to persuade my colleagues, although I’m sure sometimes I’m persuaded by the questions my colleagues ask,” he said. “If I’m asking the question, it’s because it’s a question that I really have about the rule that someone is asking us to announce, and its implications.”
It can depend on the type of case, Muñiz said.
“So, I think in Bar discipline cases, for example, oral argument makes a huge difference. They’re in a tough spot, because if they want to contest aspects of things, then obviously they should, and be zealous.”
However, Muñiz said, lawyers may also want to demonstrate remorse.
“But on the other hand, to the extent that part of what you might want to accomplish in OA is to show contrition, and acceptance of responsibility and all that. That sort of cuts the other way.”
Sanchez-Medina asked if oral arguments ever changed a justice’s mind.
“I don’t think that happens a lot, but I think it does happen, I know it’s happened to me,” Canady said. “I’ve gone in with a pretty small leaning based on the briefing, and then in the oral argument, somehow, the lawyer from one side or the other, brings together the law and the facts — they can’t be making new arguments, I’ve already made that point — but they can bring together the legal arguments and the facts in a way that is persuasive that was not persuasive in the brief.”
