Facts
- Theresa (Terri) Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest in 1990, never regained consciousness, and remained in a persistent vegetative state, receiving artificial nutrition and hydration via feeding tube.
- After years of guardianship litigation, her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, sought authorization to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.
- The guardianship court found Terri had no written advance directive but would have chosen to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration; it entered a final judgment authorizing withdrawal, which was affirmed on appeal after post-judgment proceedings concluded.
- Pursuant to that final judgment, Terri’s feeding tube was removed on October 15, 2003.
- The Florida Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418 (“Terri’s Law”) six days later, authorizing the Governor to issue a one-time stay requiring reinsertion of nutrition and hydration for a narrowly defined class of cases tied to conditions “as of October 15, 2003.”
- Governor Jeb Bush issued an executive order under the Act directing reinsertion of the feeding tube and appointing a guardian ad litem.
- Michael Schiavo filed a separate civil action challenging the Act and executive order; the circuit court granted summary judgment, holding the Act unconstitutional, and the district court certified the case for immediate review.
Issues
- Whether chapter 2003-418 violated Florida’s separation of powers by authorizing the Governor to interfere with, or effectively suspend, a final judicial determination in a specific case.
- Whether the Act unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Governor by granting broad discretion to issue and lift the stay without adequate standards.
- Whether additional constitutional defects existed (including privacy and retroactivity), and whether the court needed to reach them given its separation-of-powers analysis.
Decision
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Michael Schiavo.
- The Court held chapter 2003-418 unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it violated separation of powers.
- The Court concluded the Act impermissibly authorized executive interference with a fully adjudicated, final court judgment.
- The Court also determined the Act involved an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Governor due to insufficient standards governing the stay’s issuance and termination.
- Having resolved the case on separation-of-powers grounds, the Court did not decide every alternative constitutional basis relied on by the trial court.
Legal Principles
- The Legislature may not enact a law that authorizes the executive branch to nullify, suspend, or alter the effect of a final judicial decision in a particular case after judicial review has been completed.
- Florida’s separation of powers bars one branch from exercising powers assigned to another, including executive actions that functionally reopen or override final judgments.
- A statute that grants the executive broad, standardless discretion over core policy choices, including when and how to impose or terminate legal consequences, constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
- Case-specific legislation tailored to change the outcome of an identified dispute heightens separation-of-powers concerns, particularly where it operates after final adjudication.
Conclusion
The Florida Supreme Court invalidated “Terri’s Law” because it allowed the Governor to intervene in and countermand a final judicial determination in a single, completed case and because it delegated legislative authority to the executive without sufficient limiting standards, rendering the Act unconstitutional on its face and as applied.