substantive due process claim in Florida

2016State v. Robinson, 873 So.2d 1205, 1214 (Fla.2004) (“The rational relationship test used to analyze a substantive due process claim is synonymous with the reasonableness analysis of an equal protection claim.”); United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So.2d 668, 671 (Fla.1979) (“The determination in our equal protection analysis ‘that the statute bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible -purpose similarly satisfies the requirements-of this due process test.”); State v. Walker, 444 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA *20 1984) (noting that the test for equal protection and substantive du

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2016State v. Robinson, 873 So.2d 1205, 1214 (Fla.2004) (“The rational relationship test used to analyze a substantive due process claim is synonymous with the reasonableness analysis of an equal protection claim.”); United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So.2d 668, 671 (Fla.1979) (“The determination in our equal protection analysis ‘that the statute bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible -purpose similarly satisfies the requirements-of this due process test.”); State v. Walker, 444 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA *20 1984) (noting that the test for equal protection and substantive du

2005See Walker, 444 So.2d at 1139 (stating that the substantive due process test requires a statute to be reasonably related to a permissible legislative purpose and not be discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive).

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2003See Joseph, 834 So.2d at 376 (finding a substantive due process violation where the sheriff charged a $20 fee for prisoners returned to custody from the Department of Corrections on a writ a prosequendum, but did not charge the fee to inmates returned on writs ad testificandum; holding that the distinction drawn between the two writs did not bear a fair and substantial relation to the object of the statute).

2011Third, as a related principle of judicial restraint, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that a substantive due process analysis "must begin with a careful description of the asserted right, for `[t]he doctrine of judicial selfrestraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.'" Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 , 113 S.Ct. 1439 , 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (quoting Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 , 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)); see also Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 ("[W]e have requi

2011Fourth, I would point the majority to the cautionary warning given by the Supreme Court regarding expanding the substantive due process doctrine by recognizing new "fundamental rights." In Glucksberg , the Court cautioned that courts should be "`reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.'" Id. at 720 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 (quoting Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 , 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)).

2025"Analyzing a substantive due process claim begins with a 'careful description of the asserted right.' " Id. (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)).

2016Analyzing a substantive due process claim begins with a “careful description of the asserted right.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 , 113 S.Ct. 1439 , 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993).

2015As to the latter, substantive due process under the federal constitution “protects ‘fundamental’ rights or interests that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” City of Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So.2d 432, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reviewing only a section 1983 due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).

2003See City of Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So.2d 432, 436 , 2003 WL 22399699 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct.22, 2003).

2011See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010) (applying strict scrutiny based upon fundamental right to marry same-sex partner and invalidating provision in California constitution granting legal *822 recognition only to marriage between a man and a woman as a violation of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment); but see, In re Marriage of J.B., 326 S.W.3d at 676 (disagreeing with Perry and holding that claimed right to marry a person of the same sex did not involve a fundamental right protected under the substantive due process doctrine).

2011See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010) (applying strict scrutiny based upon fundamental right to marry same-sex partner and invalidating provision in California constitution granting le gal recognition only to marriage between a man and a woman as a violation of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment); but see, In re Marriage of J.B., 326 S.W.3d at 676 (disagreeing with Perry and holding that claimed right to marry a person of the same sex did not involve a fundamental right protected under the substantive due process doctrine).

2003See Shapiro v. State, 696 So.2d 1321, 1326-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

2003See Shapiro v. State, 696 So.2d 1321, 1326-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

1998See De Ayala, 543 So.2d at 206 (Fla. 1989).

1998See De Ayala, 543 So.2d at 206 (Fla.1989).

2025While enhanced sentences based on noncriminal acts have been deemed to constitute a substantive due process violation, see State v. O.C., 748 So. 2d 945, 949-50 (Fla. 1999); Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404, 413 (Fla. 1991) ("[A] due process violation occurs if a criminal statute's means is not rationally related to its purposes and, as a result, it criminalizes innocuous conduct." (citing art.

2025While enhanced sentences based on noncriminal acts have been deemed to constitute a substantive due process violation, see State v. O.C., 748 So. 2d 945, 949-50 (Fla. 1999); Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404, 413 (Fla. 1991) ("[A] due process violation occurs if a criminal statute's means is not rationally related to its purposes and, as a result, it criminalizes innocuous conduct." (citing art.

2021Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003).

2021“Where a person’s state-created rights are infringed by a ‘legislative act,’ the substantive component of the Due Process Clause generally protects that person from arbitrary and irrational governmental action.” Kentner, 750 F.3d at 1279-80.

2018Fla. 1996) (finding plaintiffs did not possess a cognizable substantive due process claim for their state-created property interest in a revoked building permit where “both the issuance and revocation of the building permit constitute ‘executive’ and not ‘legislative’ acts.”); City of Pompano Beach v. Yardarm Restaurant, Inc., 834 So. 2d 861, 866-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (rejecting a substantive due process claim based on allegations that the city, as part of attempt to “kill” a restaurant’s development project, improperly delayed issuing building permits, improperly revoked building permits, im

2018Id. at 958.

2018In DeKalb Stone, Inc. v. County of DeKalb, Georgia, the Eleventh Circuit reiterated its holding in McKinney that “a plaintiff did not present a substantive due process claim when he alleged an executive deprivation of a state-created right.” 106 F.3d 956 , 960 (11th Cir. 1997).

2018Fla. 1996) (finding plaintiffs did not possess a cognizable substantive due process claim for their state-created property interest in a revoked building permit where “both the issuance and revocation of the building permit constitute ‘executive’ and not ‘legislative’ acts.”); City of Pompano Beach v. Yardarm Restaurant, Inc., 834 So. 2d 861, 866-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (rejecting a substantive due process claim based on allegations that the city, as part of attempt to “kill” a restaurant’s development project, improperly delayed issuing building permits, improperly revoked building permits, im

2018Fla. 1996) (finding plaintiffs did not possess a cognizable substantive due process claim for their state-created property interest in a revoked building permit where “both the issuance and revocation of the building permit constitute ‘executive’ and not ‘legislative’ acts.”); City of Pompano Beach v. Yardarm Restaurant, Inc., 834 So. 2d 861, 866-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (rejecting a substantive due process claim based on allegations that the city, as part of attempt to “kill” a restaurant’s development project, improperly delayed issuing building permits, improperly revoked building permits, im

2016State v. Robinson, 873 So.2d 1205, 1214 (Fla.2004) (“The rational relationship test used to analyze a substantive due process claim is synonymous with the reasonableness analysis of an equal protection claim.”); United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So.2d 668, 671 (Fla.1979) (“The determination in our equal protection analysis ‘that the statute bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible -purpose similarly satisfies the requirements-of this due process test.”); State v. Walker, 444 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA *20 1984) (noting that the test for equal protection and substantive du

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2015See, e.g., WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test.”); Polakoff v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So.2d 1223, 1225-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Where no fundamental rights are involved, the test is essentially the same for both equal protection and substantive due process analysis.”); see also Joseph v. Henderson, 834 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“When no fundamental right is at stake, the standard for evaluating a substantive due process challenge i

2014When analyzing a substantive due process claim, a court must first craft “a careful description of the asserted right” in order to “narrowly frame the specific” issue before it so as not to “stray into broader constitutional vistas than are called for by the facts of the case at hand.” Moore, 410 F.3d at 1344 (quotations omitted).

2013See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d 1562, 1569-70 (11th Cir.1992).

2013See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d 1562, 1569-70 (11th Cir.1992).

2013See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d 1562, 1569-70 (11th Cir.1992).

2012See Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521, 527 (Fla.2001); Smith v. Fisher, 965 So.2d 205, 208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422 , 92 P.3d 1230 (2004) (upholding a statute authorizing termination of parental rights by applying strict scrutiny in a substantive due process challenge).