Worrell reinstatement lawsuit backed by 5 former Florida Supreme Court justices

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Five former Florida Supreme Court justices joined a legal brief filed Monday supporting Monique Worrell’s lawsuit to get her job back as Orange-Osceola state attorney, calling Gov. Ron DeSantis’ move to suspend her as a violation of the state constitution.

The five former justices — Harry Lee Anstead, Rosemary Barkett, Barbara Pariente, James E.C. Perry and Peggy Quince — were among 121 current and former prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and law enforcement leaders from around the country to back Worrell in her case before the Florida Supreme Court.

They characterized DeSantis’ suspension order, which accused Worrell of not aggressively prosecuting certain crimes, as “at best, policy disagreements as vague claims of incompetence and neglect of duty.”

The brief also cites the decision in a lawsuit brought by Andrew Warren, whose suspension by DeSantis as Hillsborough County state attorney was found by a federal judge to be a violation of free speech, though the judge also ruled he had no power to reinstate him.

The Florida Supreme Court refused to hear that case, ruling Warren took too long to file a complaint with the court.

“It is clear that even if Governor DeSantis or this Court disagrees with the manner in which SA Worrell — or any elected official — conducts her job, when those disagreements are based on reasoned, policy or other decisions well within her lawful exercise of discretion, they do not and cannot amount to justification for suspension,” the brief argued.

Top DeSantis adviser took hands-on role in state attorney transition after Worrell suspension

Worrell’s suspension in August and subsequent replacement with Orange County Judge Andrew Bain was the culmination of months of back-and-forth between her office and law enforcement leaders in Orange and Osceola counties.

DeSantis in part cites complaints by Osceola County Sheriff Marcos López that Worrell wasn’t aggressively prosecuting accused drug traffickers, which the now-suspended state attorney attempted to debunk at a press conference earlier this year.

It also cited concerns by Orange County Sheriff John Mina following a spate of shootings, including one in Pine Hills that killed three people in February, about Worrell’s office inadequately prosecuting repeat offenders.

DeSantis and Sen. Rick Scott lambasted Worrell after those killings for not prosecuting the shooter for misdemeanor marijuana possession in 2021. Worrell said the amount of marijuana was too small to be suitable for Florida Department of Law Enforcement testing.

Those reasons and others cited in the suspension order, Worrell and others have argued, fall under the state attorney’s discretion.

“Governor DeSantis has once again suspended a duly-elected State Attorney because he apparently disagrees with her policies,” Pariente, one of the former justices who signed onto the brief, said in a statement. “In so doing, he has, yet again, exceeded his authority, violated well-settled prosecutorial independence and disregarded the rights of the people of Florida to be represented by their chosen leaders.”

In Worrell’s suspension by DeSantis, Ayala sees echoes from her own tenure as state attorney

The Worrell suit is the latest to test the limits of a governor’s ability to sanction an elected state attorney. Scott took on her predecessor, Aramis Ayala, by reassigning dozens of murder cases from the Orange-Osceola office in 2017 after Ayala announced her refusal to seek the death penalty.

Ayala sued, ultimately fighting Scott’s actions to the state Supreme Court, which sided with the then-governor. Pariente and Quince, who were on the court at the time, dissented with the majority’s ruling in that case.