## 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

1. 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.
2. Whether the Act unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Governor by granting broad discretion to issue and lift the stay without adequate standards.
3. 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.


Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004)