TALLAHASSEE — Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is appealing after a U.S. district judge rejected a lawsuit involving federal transit money and a controversial 2023 state law that placed additional restrictions on public-employee unions.
Lawyers in Moody’s office filed a notice that is an initial step in asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a Sept. 27 ruling by U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian that sided with the Biden administration.
As is common, the notice does not detail arguments the state will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court.
But the state, in part, has challenged the constitutionality of a longstanding federal law designed to ensure that transit workers’ collective-bargaining rights are protected before federal transit money is provided to local agencies.
The 2023 state law, approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature, drew heavy opposition from unions, which said it violated collective-bargaining rights. The law included a series of restrictions on public-employee unions, including preventing workers from having dues deducted from their paychecks and requiring unions to be recertified as bargaining agents if fewer than 60 percent of eligible employees pay dues.
In 2023, Florida transit agencies, including agencies in Miami-Dade and Broward County, submitted applications for federal money, Damian wrote. But unions objected because they said the state law prevented transit agencies from continuing collective-bargaining rights..
Ultimately, the state Public Employees Relations Commission granted waivers from the 2023 law to the transit agencies. But Damian’s ruling said Florida disagreed with a U.S. Department of Labor determination that parts of the state law, including the ban on paycheck dues deductions, harmed collective bargaining.
Moody’s office filed the lawsuit in October, alleging that the federal law aimed at protecting collective-bargaining rights was unconstitutional. Also, the lawsuit alleged that the Department of Labor had violated another law known as the Administrative Procedure Act because its determination about the state law harming collective bargaining was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The state alleged, in part, that the federal law was unconstitutional because of “ambiguous terms governing the grant of funds,” Damian wrote. But she rejected the argument.
“In sum, the state has not demonstrated that it has been presented with a scenario in which it is required to accept funds under unconstitutionally ambiguous conditions,” Damian wrote. “Nor has it demonstrated that the statute is facially unconstitutional. Therefore, this court declines the state’s request for a declaration that (the federal law) is unconstitutional.”
Also, she rejected the argument that the Department of Labor violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
“(A) reading of the statute’s plain text reflects that Congress gave the DOL the authority to construe (the federal law) to determine whether provisions that affect employee collective bargaining rights are ‘fair and equitable.’” Damian wrote. “The state offers no authority to support a finding that the DOL violated the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) where the DOL did what Congress said it could do.”