Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 120.56 (2025)

Challenges to rules.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

120.56 Challenges to rules.—

(1) GENERAL PROCEDURES.—

(a) Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

(b) The petition challenging the validity of a proposed or adopted rule under this section must state:

1. The particular provisions alleged to be invalid and a statement of the facts or grounds for the alleged invalidity.

2. Facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged adopted rule or would be substantially affected by the proposed rule.

(c) The petition shall be filed by electronic means with the division which shall, immediately upon filing, forward by electronic means copies to the agency whose rule is challenged, the Department of State, and the committee. Within 10 days after receiving the petition, the division director shall, if the petition complies with paragraph (b), assign an administrative law judge who shall conduct a hearing within 30 days thereafter, unless the petition is withdrawn or a continuance is granted by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown. Evidence of good cause includes, but is not limited to, written notice of an agency’s decision to modify or withdraw the proposed rule or a written notice from the chair of the committee stating that the committee will consider an objection to the rule at its next scheduled meeting. The failure of an agency to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter shall be presumed to be material; however, the agency may rebut this presumption by showing that the substantial interests of the petitioner and the fairness of the proceedings have not been impaired.

(d) Within 30 days after the hearing, the administrative law judge shall render a decision and state the reasons for his or her decision in writing. The division shall forthwith transmit by electronic means copies of the administrative law judge’s decision to the agency, the Department of State, and the committee.

(e) Hearings held under this section shall be de novo in nature. The standard of proof shall be the preponderance of the evidence. Hearings shall be conducted in the same manner as provided by ss. 120.569 and 120.57, except that the administrative law judge’s order shall be final agency action. The petitioner and the agency whose rule is challenged shall be adverse parties. Other substantially affected persons may join the proceedings as intervenors on appropriate terms which shall not unduly delay the proceedings. Failure to proceed under this section does not constitute failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

(2) CHALLENGING PROPOSED RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.—

(a) A petition alleging the invalidity of a proposed rule shall be filed within 21 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(a); within 10 days after the final public hearing is held on the proposed rule as provided by s. 120.54(3)(e)2.; within 20 days after the statement of estimated regulatory costs or revised statement of estimated regulatory costs, if applicable, has been prepared and made available as provided in s. 120.541(1)(d); or within 20 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(d). The petitioner has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be substantially affected by the proposed rule. The agency then has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised. A person who is not substantially affected by the proposed rule as initially noticed, but who is substantially affected by the rule as a result of a change, may challenge any provision of the resulting proposed rule.

(b) The administrative law judge may declare the proposed rule wholly or partly invalid. Unless the decision of the administrative law judge is reversed on appeal, the proposed rule or provision of a proposed rule declared invalid shall not be adopted. After a petition for administrative determination has been filed, the agency may proceed with all other steps in the rulemaking process, including the holding of a factfinding hearing. In the event part of a proposed rule is declared invalid, the adopting agency may, in its sole discretion, withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety. The agency whose proposed rule has been declared invalid in whole or part shall give notice of the decision in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Register.

(c) When any substantially affected person seeks determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule pursuant to this section, the proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or invalid.

(3) CHALLENGING RULES IN EFFECT; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.—

(a) A petition alleging the invalidity of an existing rule may be filed at any time during which the rule is in effect. The petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.

(b) The administrative law judge may declare all or part of a rule invalid. The rule or part thereof declared invalid shall become void when the time for filing an appeal expires. The agency whose rule has been declared invalid in whole or part shall give notice of the decision in the Florida Administrative Register in the first available issue after the rule has become void.

(4) CHALLENGING AGENCY STATEMENTS DEFINED AS UNADOPTED RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.—

(a) Any person substantially affected by an agency statement that is an unadopted rule may seek an administrative determination that the statement violates s. 120.54(1)(a). The petition shall include the text of the statement or a description of the statement and shall state facts sufficient to show that the statement constitutes an unadopted rule.

(b) The administrative law judge may extend the hearing date beyond 30 days after assignment of the case for good cause. Upon notification to the administrative law judge provided before the final hearing that the agency has published a notice of rulemaking under s. 120.54(3), such notice shall automatically operate as a stay of proceedings pending adoption of the statement as a rule. The administrative law judge may vacate the stay for good cause shown. A stay of proceedings pending rulemaking shall remain in effect so long as the agency is proceeding expeditiously and in good faith to adopt the statement as a rule.

(c) If a hearing is held and the petitioner proves the allegations of the petition, the agency shall have the burden of proving that rulemaking is not feasible or not practicable under s. 120.54(1)(a).

(d) The administrative law judge may determine whether all or part of a statement violates s. 120.54(1)(a). The decision of the administrative law judge shall constitute a final order. The division shall transmit a copy of the final order to the Department of State and the committee. The Department of State shall publish notice of the final order in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Register.

(e) If an administrative law judge enters a final order that all or part of an unadopted rule violates s. 120.54(1)(a), the agency must immediately discontinue all reliance upon the unadopted rule or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action.

(f) If proposed rules addressing the challenged unadopted rule are determined to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in s. 120.52(8)(b)-(f), the agency must immediately discontinue reliance upon the unadopted rule and any substantially similar statement until rules addressing the subject are properly adopted, and the administrative law judge shall enter a final order to that effect.

(g) All proceedings to determine a violation of s. 120.54(1)(a) shall be brought pursuant to this subsection. A proceeding pursuant to this subsection may be consolidated with a proceeding under subsection (3) or under any other section of this chapter. This paragraph does not prevent a party whose substantial interests have been determined by an agency action from bringing a proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57(1)(e).

(5) CHALLENGING EMERGENCY RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.—Challenges to the validity of an emergency rule shall be subject to the following time schedules in lieu of those established by paragraphs (1)(c) and (d). Within 7 days after receiving the petition, the division director shall, if the petition complies with paragraph (1)(b), assign an administrative law judge, who shall conduct a hearing within 14 days, unless the petition is withdrawn. The administrative law judge shall render a decision within 14 days after the hearing.

History.—s. 1, ch. 74-310; s. 5, ch. 75-191; s. 6, ch. 76-131; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 4, ch. 78-425; s. 759, ch. 95-147; s. 16, ch. 96-159; s. 6, ch. 97-176; s. 5, ch. 99-379; s. 3, ch. 2003-94; s. 5, ch. 2006-82; ss. 10, 11, ch. 2008-104; ss. 3, 5, ch. 2010-279; HJR 9-A, 2010 Special Session A; s. 10, ch. 2011-208; s. 3, ch. 2011-225; s. 8, ch. 2013-14; s. 3, ch. 2016-116.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 288 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). · cites it 17× “The court below certified to us, as having great public importance, the following question: Whether, under section 120.56, Florida Statutes, a trade association, which is not itself affected by an agency rule but some or all of whose members are substantially affected by the…”

State, Dept. of Adminstration v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). · cites it 12× “Richard Stevens (one of the respondents herein) for administrative determination of rule-invalidity under the provisions of § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (1975). (We have removed from the captions of these review proceedings State of Florida Department of Administration, Division of…”

State, Bd. of Optometry v. FLA. SOC. OF OPHTH., 538 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). · cites it 13× “This section 120.56 rule challenge proceeding involves a determination of the invalidity of rule 21Q-10.”

NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 863 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 18× “The hearing officer found that the association had standing to bring the rule challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1979), but the First District reversed, finding that such an association was not a substantially affected party.”

Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · cites it 15× “” Section 120.56 Proceeding This proceeding began on August 17, 2007, when Mylan filed a petition seeking to have rule 64B16-27.”

Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 10× “, § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla.”

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Gen. Serv. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). · cites it 6× “30, Florida Statutes (1973), with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974).”

Florida Bd. of Med. v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 8× “517 itself contains nothing to suggest such a limitation, we conclude that the legislature intended that any "substantially affected" person (as that term is used in section 120.56, Florida Statutes) may challenge any rule of the Board which violates section 455.”

NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 822 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 12× “Appellants immediately filed a petition pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1999), challenging seven of the amendments that modified the existing rules by (1) reaffirming the state's commitment to increasing diversity in university admissions, but repealing language…”

Sys. Mgt. Assocs. v. State, Etc., 391 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). · cites it 9× “By petition for rule determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, Appellant asserted that there exist two rules within the meaning of Section 120.”

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure-2017 Regular-cycle Report., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 6× “(i) In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes, the record shall consist of all notices, pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings; evidence admitted; those matters officially recognized; proffers of proof and objections and…”

Christo v. State, Dept. of Banking & Fin., 649 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). · cites it 20× “Appellants alleged in their Petition that the following unpromulgated agency statements of general applicability by the Department of Banking and Finance were unpromulgated agency rules that violated section 120.56, Florida Statutes, and section 120.”

Show all 288 citing cases →

— 120.56(1) — 52 cases

Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). “The court below certified to us, as having great public importance, the following question: Whether, under section 120.56, Florida Statutes, a trade association, which is not itself affected by an agency rule but some or all of whose members are substantially affected by the…”

State, Dept. of Adminstration v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “Richard Stevens (one of the respondents herein) for administrative determination of rule-invalidity under the provisions of § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (1975). (We have removed from the captions of these review proceedings State of Florida Department of Administration, Division of…”

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Gen. Serv. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “30, Florida Statutes (1973), with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974).”

NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 863 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2003). “The hearing officer found that the association had standing to bring the rule challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1979), but the First District reversed, finding that such an association was not a substantially affected party.”

Florida Bd. of Med. v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “517 itself contains nothing to suggest such a limitation, we conclude that the legislature intended that any "substantially affected" person (as that term is used in section 120.56, Florida Statutes) may challenge any rule of the Board which violates section 455.”

— 120.56(1)(a) — 13 cases

NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 822 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “Appellants immediately filed a petition pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1999), challenging seven of the amendments that modified the existing rules by (1) reaffirming the state's commitment to increasing diversity in university admissions, but repealing language…”

Florida Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. CITY OF POMPANA BEACH, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Ortiz v. Dep't of Health, 882 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

— 120.56(1)(b) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Gen. Serv. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “30, Florida Statutes (1973), with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974).”

— 120.56(1)(c) — 2 cases

Osterback v. Agwunobi, 873 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Christopher Pretzer v. Rick Swearingen, individually & in his Off. capacity, & Florida Dep't of Law Enf't (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

— 120.56(1)(e) — 9 cases

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000).

Amend. to Rules of App. Proc., Civ. Proc., 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2004).

Dep't of Health v. Merritt, 919 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Amend. to Fla. Rule of Appellate Proc. 9.020 (A), 681 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1996).

Clemons v. State Risk Mgmt. Trust Fund, 870 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

— 120.56(2) — 25 cases

Ramadanovic v. Dept. of Corr., 575 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

State, Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Assoc., Inc., 794 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

State, Dept. of Health, Etc. v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

ST. JOHNS RIVER v. Consol.-Tomoka, 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

— 120.56(2)(a) — 11 cases

Sw. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Charlotte Cty., 774 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

ST. JOHNS RIVER v. Consol.-Tomoka, 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Florida Pulp & Paper Ass'n Env't Affairs, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 223 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Bd. of Clin. Lab. v. Ass'n of Blood Banks, 721 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

— 120.56(2)(b) — 1 case

Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011). “, § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla.”

— 120.56(2)(c) — 6 cases

ST. JOHNS RIVER v. Consol.-Tomoka, 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Bd. of Clin. Lab. v. Ass'n of Blood Banks, 721 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 270 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

The Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty., etc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 270 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

— 120.56(3) — 10 cases

State, Bd. of Optometry v. FLA. SOC. OF OPHTH., 538 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). “This section 120.56 rule challenge proceeding involves a determination of the invalidity of rule 21Q-10.”

Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). “” Section 120.56 Proceeding This proceeding began on August 17, 2007, when Mylan filed a petition seeking to have rule 64B16-27.”

ST. JOHNS RIVER v. Consol.-Tomoka, 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Wexler v. Lepore, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

Caddy v. State, Dept. of Health, 764 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

— 120.56(3)(a) — 9 cases

John Goodman v. Florida Dep't of Law Enf't, 203 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Off. of Ins. Reg. v. Serv. Ins. Co., 50 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 270 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

— 120.56(3)(b) — 2 cases

Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011). “, § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla.”

— 120.56(4) — 19 cases

Dep't of High. Saf. v. Schluter, 705 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

The Sch. Bd. of Hernando v. Michelle Rhea, Theresa Butler, 213 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Sw. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Charlotte Cty., 774 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

GRABBA-LEAF, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l etc., 257 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Osceola Fish Farm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Div., of Admin. Hear., 830 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

— 120.56(4)(a) — 7 cases

Florida Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. CITY OF POMPANA BEACH, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Lanoue v. Florida Dept. of Law Enf't, 751 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

J.S. v. C.M., 135 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Agency for Health Care Admin. v. HHCI LTD., 865 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Osceola Fish Farm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Div., of Admin. Hear., 830 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

— 120.56(4)(b) — 2 cases

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Trapeo, 136 So. 3d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Thomas Saunders v. Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, 185 So. 3d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

— 120.56(4)(d) — 3 cases

Agency for Health Care Admin. v. HHCI LTD., 865 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Thomas Saunders v. Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, 185 So. 3d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Admin. v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

— 120.56(4)(e) — 4 cases

Osceola Fish Farm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Div., of Admin. Hear., 830 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Jenkins v. State, 855 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Florida Dep't of Health v. Pups Pub TPA, LLC, & Pups Pub Orlando, LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

Savona v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 717 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

— 120.56(4)(f) — 1 case

Thomas Saunders v. Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, 185 So. 3d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

— 120.56(5) — 9 cases

Sys. Mgt. Assocs. v. State, Etc., 391 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “By petition for rule determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, Appellant asserted that there exist two rules within the meaning of Section 120.”

Adam Smith Enter., Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. REG., 553 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

State, Dept. of Ins. v. Ins. Servs. Off., 434 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Fla. Dept of Nat. Res., 536 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Nord v. Florida Parole & Prob. Com'n, 417 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

— 120.56(l)(a) — 8 cases

Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011). “, § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla.”

State, Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc., 108 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

State, Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass'n, 798 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Wilkinson v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 853 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

— 120.56(l)(c) — 2 cases

Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011). “, § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla.”

Cmty. Health Charities v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 961 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

— 120.56(l)(e) — 4 cases

Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2002).

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 894 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2005).

HOA Vuong, Mark Pebley, Robert McKenna v. Florida Dep't of Law Enf't, 149 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.