Looming hurricane not expected to delay hearing over Florida abortion website

Live oaks stand outside the Leon County Courthouse on March 11, 2022. (Photo by Michael Moline/Florida PhoenixThe first courtroom clash over Florida’s efforts to convince voters to reject Amendment 4 is expected to happen Wednesday.

Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Sjostrom in Leon County plans on holding a remote hearing on a request to block the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) from “unlawful and unconstitutional spread of misinformation” about the abortion-access amendment. 

This is one of two legal battles underway surrounding efforts to defeat the amendment that was pushed in the wake of strict limits on abortion put in place by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Screenshot: Florida Channel)

The ACLU of Florida and Southern Legal Counsel filed the lawsuit earlier this month against AHCA on behalf of Floridians Protecting Freedom, the amendment sponsor. 

AHCA’s efforts against the measure include a website asserting that its passage would threaten the safety of women. The agency has also aired TV and radio ads directing Floridians to the website.

The lawsuit contends that, under the guise of providing “facts” to the public about abortion, the DeSantis administration is using its official authority or influence to interfere with an election or influence votes, which they say violates state law.

William Stafford III, special counsel to Attorney General Ashley Moody, plus Brian Barnes and Clark L. Hildabrand of the Cooper and Kirk law firm in Washington, D.C., represent AHCA. 

Those attorneys argued in a filing late Monday that the political committee backing the amendment lacks legal standing for its lawsuit because it has not suffered injury. They also argue that it has failed to meet the legal standard for an injunction, which includes substantial likelihood of success on the merits; unavailability of adequate remedy under law; and that the injunction would serve the public interest. 

Approval for remote hearing

“Plaintiff itself has not and will not suffer irreparable harm. Even if FPF were entitled to some form of temporary injunction, which it is not, its requested relief is overbroad and would likely forbid speech that does not violate the Florida Constitution,” the attorneys wrote in their brief.

Amendment 4 is one of the most hotly contested issues Florida voters will weigh in on this November. Abortion rights proponents gathered nearly 1 million signatures to put the proposed amendment on the ballot after the Florida Legislature passed a six-week abortion ban and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law in 2023. The ban took effect on May 1.

If approved by 60% of the voters, the amendment would undo Florida’s existing ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, allowing them instead to be performed through the point of viability, or around 24 weeks’ gestation.

Sjostrom scheduled a Zoom hearing on FPF’s request for Wednesday afternoon. The hurricane threat across Florida’s Gulf Coast is expected to close the court for the day. Sjostrom, however, has permission from the chief judge to conduct the hearing remotely if the courthouse is closed to the public.

Attorneys for the state also said in their briefs that the AHCA’s speech is protected and they dismissed allegations that the information on the webpage is misleading.

“Nothing in Florida law supports FPF’s attempt to make this court a referee in the fundamentally political dispute over the accuracy of AHCA’s speech about Amendment 4. In any event, FPF is wrong when it accuses AHCA of “spreading false information about the amendment,” the brief says.

The trial court challenge isn’t the only one against the state’s webpage.

Palm Beach County lawyer Adam Richardson asked the Florida Supreme Court to block AHCA’s efforts against the abortion rights amendment. Lawyers for Moody filed a sharply worded rebuttal late Monday defending the state’s action. Liberty Counsel and the related Liberty Counsel Action, which focus on religious-rights litigation, filed an amicus brief with the court also arguing the First Amendment protects the webpage.