Supreme Court of Florida ______________

No. SC21-1543

______________

IN RE: REDEFINITION OF APPELLATE DISTRICTS AND 

CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL 

APPELLATE JUDGES.

November 24, 2021

PER CURIAM.

Consistent with the recommendations of a Court-appointed 

assessment committee, this Court has determined that a sixth 

appellate district should be created in Florida and that 

accompanying changes should be made to the existing boundaries 

of the First, Second, and Fifth districts.1 Also consistent with the

1. Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in 

pertinent part:

Determination of number of judges.—The 

supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for 

the determination of the need for additional judges except 

supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the 

number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or 

redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits. If the 

supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or 

decreasing the number of judges or increasing, 
- 2 -

assessment committee’s recommendations, the Court has 

determined that six new appellate judgeships are needed for the 

continued effective operation of the newly aligned district courts of 

appeal of this state. The subject of trial court certification of need 

for additional judges is addressed in a separate opinion.2

I. Background

In May 2021, this Court appointed a District Court of Appeal 

Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee3 composed of 

appellate judges, trial court judges, and lawyers to evaluate the 

necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining the appellate 

districts. The Committee evaluated the operation of the existing 

districts using the five criteria prescribed in Rule of General 

decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 

circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the 

legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and 

recommendations concerning such need.

2. See In re Trial Court Certification of Need for Additional 

Judges, No. SC21-1542 (Fla. Nov. 24, 2021).

3. See In re District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 

Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC21-13 (May 6, 

2021).
- 3 -

Practice and Judicial Administration 2.241: effectiveness, efficiency, 

access to appellate review, professionalism, and public trust and 

confidence. The Committee filed its final report4 with the Court on 

September 30, 2021. By this certification, the Court adopts the 

Committee’s recommendation for a realignment of the state’s 

appellate districts in order to create a sixth district, which we 

conclude would significantly improve the judicial process.

II. District Realignment

A discussion of the full background and reasoning for the 

Committee’s recommendation concerning a new appellate district is 

contained in the Committee’s final report and recommendations. A 

majority of the Committee recommended the creation of at least one 

additional district court, with a plurality supporting the creation of 

a sixth district and the adjustment of the existing district lines in 

the manner we certify in this opinion.

The “primary rationale” for this recommendation “is that 

creation of an additional DCA would promote public trust and

4. District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 

Assessment Committee Final Report and Recommendations,

https://www.flcourts.org/DCA-Committee-Report.
- 4 -

confidence.” This rationale is linked specifically to the provisions of 

rule 2.241(d), which sets forth “public trust and confidence” as one 

of the criteria to be considered when determining the necessity for 

increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts. The rule 

sets forth several factors to be evaluated in connection with the 

public trust and confidence criterion:

Public Trust and Confidence. Factors to be 

considered for this criterion are the extent to which each 

court:

(A) handles its workload in a manner permitting its 

judges adequate time for community involvement;

(B) provides adequate access to oral arguments and 

other public proceedings for the general public within its 

district;

(C) fosters public trust and confidence given its 

geography and demographic composition; and

(D) attracts a diverse group of well-qualified 

applicants for judicial vacancies, including applicants 

from all circuits within the district.

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(d)(5).

Regarding these factors, the Committee report observes:

Specifically, an additional [district court] would help 

provide adequate access to oral arguments and other 

proceedings, foster public trust and confidence based on 

geography and demographic composition, and attract a 

diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial 

vacancies including applicants from all circuits within 

each district.

Assessment Committee Report at 3-4.
- 5 -

We agree with the Committee’s conclusion that public trust 

and confidence will be enhanced by the creation of a sixth district 

court. We recognize that the rule factors related to public trust and

confidence are largely subjective and that they are affected by 

circumstances that go beyond the number of district courts and the 

configuration of district boundaries. Nonetheless, we believe that 

the factors are meaningful considerations and that the Committee 

has identified a reasonable basis for its proposal.

A salient issue relevant to this criterion is the serious 

underrepresentation among district court judges of judges from 

within the Fourth Judicial Circuit, which contains Jacksonville, one 

of Florida’s largest metropolitan areas. Under the current 

configuration of district courts, the Fourth Judicial Circuit 

generates 29 percent of the filings of the First District Court, but 

only two judges—constituting 13 percent of the judges on the First 

District Court—are from the Fourth Judicial Circuit. Even more 

striking, the population of the Fourth Circuit—with its 2 out of 15 

DCA judges—makes up 37.5% of the population of the current First 
- 6 -

District.5 Although no district court configuration will perfectly 

address every relevant consideration, the configuration proposed in 

the Committee’s plurality plan would help address this geographical 

anomaly existing in the current district court system.

The creation of a new district court, like any other significant 

change in the judicial system, would be accompanied by some 

degree of internal disruption, but we conclude that any such 

internal disruption in the district courts associated with the 

creation of a sixth district court would be short-lived and would be 

outweighed by the benefit of enhanced public trust and confidence.

Appended to this certification is a map showing the 

geographical areas to be within the recommended, realigned 

districts. Also appended to this certification is a table showing the 

counties and judicial circuits affected by the proposed new district 

boundaries. As shown, the Fourth Judicial Circuit6 moves from the

5. As of January 1, 2019, the population of the Fourth Circuit 

was 1,264,060 and the population of the First District was 

3,346,191.

6. The Fourth Judicial Circuit is composed of Clay, Duval, 

and Nassau counties.
- 7 -

First District into the Fifth District, composed of the Fourth, Fifth, 

Seventh, and Eighteenth judicial circuits; the Ninth Judicial 

Circuit7 moves from the Fifth District into the Second District, 

composed of the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth judicial circuits; and

the Sixth,8 Twelfth,9 and Thirteenth10 judicial circuits move from 

the Second District to compose a newly created Sixth District Court 

of Appeal. The boundaries of the Third and Fourth district courts 

are unaffected by this proposal.

The Court acknowledges that a variety of operational issues

with policy and fiscal implications will arise from creating an 

additional district court and revising the territorial jurisdiction of 

other courts. For example, the Florida Constitution, under article 

V, section 4, requires the appointment of a clerk and a marshal to 

7. The Ninth Judicial Circuit is composed of Orange and 

Osceola counties.

8. The Sixth Judicial Circuit is composed of Pasco and 

Pinellas counties.

9. The Twelfth Judicial Circuit is composed of DeSoto, 

Manatee, and Sarasota counties.

10. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is composed of 

Hillsborough County. 
- 8 -

each district court. A new district court will also require associated 

administrative, security, and information technology support staff. 

Additionally, the realigned Second District will require an interim 

facility in which to operate while a more permanent facility is 

considered. The Court is prepared to assist the Legislature, as 

needed, in determining an appropriate level of court system 

resources associated with the creation of the new district court, the 

details of which will be dependent upon the policy direction the 

Legislature establishes. Other potential operational effects on

justice system entities are discussed in the Committee’s report.

III. Additional Judges

This opinion also fulfills our constitutional obligation to 

determine the State’s need for additional district court judges in 

fiscal year 2022/2023 and to certify our “findings and 

recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida 

Legislature.11 Certification is “the sole mechanism established by 

our constitution for a systematic and uniform assessment of this 

11. Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const.
- 9 -

need.” In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 889 So. 2d 

734, 735 (Fla. 2004).

The Court continues to use a verified objective weighted 

caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial 

need.12 When applied to the district courts as they currently exist, 

the methodology does not indicate the need for certification or 

decertification of additional judgeships. However, the simultaneous 

consideration of the creation of an additional district court and the 

realignment of existing district boundaries raises policy 

considerations with workload implications.

Article V, section 8 of the Florida Constitution provides that 

“[n]o person shall be eligible for office of justice or judge of any 

court unless the person is an elector of the state and resides in the 

territorial jurisdiction of the court.” The District Court of Appeal 

Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee recommended 

that no existing district court judge’s position be decertified while 

that judge is in office and that no existing district court judge have 

12. Our certification methodology relies primarily on the 

relative weight of cases disposed on the merits to determine the 

need for additional district court judges. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & 

Jud. Admin. 2.240.
- 10 -

to change residence in order to remain in office as a result of the 

realignment of districts. The Committee also recognized that, if 

such a policy approach were adopted, there might not be sufficient 

judges residing within included counties to meet the estimated 

judicial workload of that realigned district. In turn, the number of 

judges in another district may initially exceed its estimated need 

after realignment. Although it was not charged with determining 

the need for additional judges, the Committee used a modified 

weighted caseload methodology, only slightly different from that 

used in certification, to estimate judicial need as it considered 

realignment of existing districts and creation of an additional 

district. That methodology suggested the need for six appellate 

judges to meet the workload of realigned districts without a 

sufficient number of judges who currently reside within the 

boundaries of the districts.

The Court concurs with the Committee’s recommendation that 

realignment of districts not result in decertification of judges or a 

requirement for judges to change their residence in order to remain 

in office. Thus, we adopt the Committee’s methodology to meet the 

need of districts without sufficient resident judges and in this 
- 11 -

opinion certify the need for six additional district court judgeships, 

one in the realigned Second District and five in the realigned Fifth 

District. This assessment is based on the assumption that each 

existing judge who resides within a county that was proposed for

assignment to a new district court would be considered a judge of 

the new district court.

The creation of the new judgeships we have certified would

result in six district courts of appeal composed of the following

judicial officers:

First District: 13 judges (all presently sitting).

Second District: 10 judges (9 presently sitting and 1 to be 

added).

Third District: 10 judges (all presently sitting).

Fourth District: 12 judges (all presently sitting).

Fifth District: 12 judges (7 presently sitting and 5 to be added).

Sixth District: 13 judges (all presently sitting).

Further, the Court recommends that the legislation 

implementing the territorial jurisdiction changes specify that 

vacancies will not be deemed to occur as a result of the changes 

and recommends that excess judicial capacity in a given district 
- 12 -

court be addressed over time through attrition, as guided by this 

Court’s annual certification of the need for additional appellate 

judges. The creation of an additional district and changes to the 

territorial boundaries of other districts are milestone events that 

have not occurred since the creation of the Fifth District Court of 

Appeal in 1979. It will take some time to fully assess the impact of 

these changes on workload and judicial need for any given court

and statewide.

We decertify no district court judgeships. As noted above, the

Court recommends that the creation of an additional district and 

realignment of existing districts not result in decertification of

existing judges, pending an opportunity to fully assess workload 

need over time through future certification processes. In addition, 

statutory amendments and other relevant circumstances militate 

against decertification of any appellate court judgeships.

Specifically, the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19) pandemic in the circuit and county courts has been 

significant. Those operational impacts at the trial court level have a 

direct bearing on the number of appeals filed in the district courts. 
- 13 -

An increase in district court workload is anticipated as the trial 

courts fully return to normal operations.

Another issue requiring consideration, because it influences

this Court’s ability to accurately project judicial need, is the

transfer of circuit court authority to hear appeals from county court 

final orders and judgments in criminal misdemeanor cases and 

most civil cases to the district courts of appeal effective January 

2021 (Chapter 2020-61, sections 3 and 8, Laws of Florida). These

changes are affecting the respective distribution of judicial workload 

between the circuit and district courts. However, given that this 

change occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been 

difficult to determine the ultimate workload associated with this 

statutory change.

IV. Certification

In accordance with article V, section 9 of the Florida 

Constitution, we therefore certify the need for six additional district 

court of appeal judgeships, bringing to 70 the total number of 

judges on the state’s district courts of appeal, and we recommend 

that the state’s judicial districts be aligned as follows:
- 14 -

First District: to contain the First, Second, Third, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth judicial circuits.

Second District: to contain the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth 

judicial circuits.

Third District: to contain the Eleventh and Sixteenth judicial 

circuits.

Fourth District: to contain the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and 

Nineteenth judicial circuits.

Fifth District: to contain the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and 

Eighteenth judicial circuits.

Sixth District: to contain the Sixth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth 

judicial circuits.

To implement these proposals, the Court certifies to the 

Legislature the need to amend chapter 35, Florida Statutes, to 

create a new district court of appeal and realign the other district 

court boundaries as described above. As to judges currently 

residing in the realigned districts, no vacancies in office shall be 

deemed to occur by reason of the realignment of districts. 

Consequently, if the certified plan is adopted the two First District 

judges residing in Duval County shall be judges of the Fifth District 
- 15 -

(which will include Duval County); the three Second District judges 

residing in Pinellas County, one residing within Pasco County, one 

residing in Manatee County, and eight residing in Hillsborough 

County shall be judges of the Sixth District (which will include 

those counties); and the six Fifth District judges residing in Orange 

County shall be judges of the Second District (which will include 

Orange County).

We recommend no decertification of district court judgeships.

We further certify that the realignment of the state’s judicial 

districts and the certification of six district court judges, as set forth 

in the appendix to this opinion, are necessary, and we recommend 

that the Legislature enact the applicable laws and appropriate 

funds so that the adjustments can be implemented.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and 

COURIEL, JJ., concur.

GROSSHANS, J., concurs in result only.

POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion.

POLSTON, J., dissenting.

The majority certifies a need for an additional district court of 

appeal and 6 additional district court of appeal judges that is not 
- 16 -

supported by any of the 5 chief judges of the district courts of 

appeal or by any district court of appeal judge on the District Court 

of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee. I 

agree with the district court of appeal judges that no changes are 

justified.

Under our annual certification process for the need for 

additional judges, no district court requested certification of 

additional judgeships, and none are justified by the average 

projected judicial need analysis performed. In the last 20 years, 

there has been a net addition of 2 district court of appeal judges. 

One was decertified in the Third District Court of Appeal in 2009, 

one added to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 2015, and 2 were 

added to the Second District Court of Appeal in 2015. No more 

changes have been needed in the last 6 years, and the answer 

should be the same now. There is no objective justification for the 6 

additional judges certified by the majority.

Instead, the majority approves the Committee’s 

recommendation to create an additional district court of appeal 

because it believes there should be more judges from Jacksonville 

as a matter of public trust and confidence. It is the creation of the 
- 17 -

Sixth District Court of Appeal that provides the rationale for 6 new 

judges, not needed workload capacity. Two of the 15 judges on the 

First District Court of Appeal are from Jacksonville, which the 

majority treats as “serious underrepresentation.” Majority op. at 5. 

Objectively, that is not the case.

Looking specifically at Jacksonville, Duval County had 926 

cases filed in fiscal year 2019-20 at the First District.13 Using the 

same metrics the Court uses to determine the certified need for 

judges on district courts of appeal, taking those 926 Duval cases 

divided by 239, the 3-year average weighted judicial workload per 

judge (2017-18 to 2019-20) for the First District, there would be a 

calculated need for 3 judges specifically as to Duval. Arguably the 

average number should be even higher as eligible judges are based 

13. The information used in this paragraph was obtained 

from the Committee’s report, Appendix D-41, the DCA Workload 

and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee, DCA Filings and 

Dispositions by Circuit/County, Fiscal Year 2017-18, 2018-19, and 

2019-20; Appendix D-12 District Courts of Appeal Judicial 

Workload Per Judge and Percent Change; and Certification of Need 

for Additional Judges FY 2022-23, 2A-1 District Courts of Appeal 

Fiscal Year 2022-23. Amounts per judge are rounded down, 

consistent with the annual practice to determine the number of 

needed positions.
- 18 -

on the presumptive need of 315 average weighted judicial workload 

per judge after application of the additional judgeships. Based on 

that number, there would be a calculated need for 2 judges 

specifically as to Duval. Again, there are already 2 judges from 

Jacksonville on the First District. So looking at the most recent 

data, either there is no calculated need for an additional judge from 

Jacksonville, or perhaps one. Taking an average over 3 years 

(2017-18 to 2019-20), Duval had 1,178 filings, which would be a 

calculated need of 4 judges (based on 239, the 3-year average per 

judge), or 3 judges (based on 315, the average presumptive need per 

judge). Using this 3-year average, there would be a calculated need 

for 1 or 2 more Jacksonville judges out of 15. At most, the 

additional 2 judges from Jacksonville are 13% of the 15 on the First 

District. Serious underrepresentation cannot be found at 13%.

As the majority notes, Jacksonville is a large metropolitan 

area. But the Florida Constitution does not provide for redistricting 

in the court system based on population size as it does for 

legislative representation, and the Committee properly did not do 

so. See generally art. III, § 16, Fla. Const. (providing 

reapportionment after each decennial census). It is court filings, 
- 19 -

not population size that matters to how many judges are needed. 

As noted in the Committee’s September 30, 2021, Final Report and 

Recommendations, page 10, “the number of [district court of 

appeal] filings, from calendar year 2016 through calendar year 2020 

declined each year while Florida’s population continued to increase 

during the same period.” The statewide district court of appeal 

filings per 100,000 population steadily decreased each year from 

116 in 2016 to 70 in 2020. Jacksonville’s population size is not 

justification to add a sixth district court of appeal.

Moreover, the relevant portion of the rule setting out the 

factors for public trust and confidence is whether the court 

“attracts [a] diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial 

vacancies, including applicants from all circuits within the district.” 

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(d)(5)(D). Significantly, the 

rule requires that the court attracts well-qualified applicants, not 

that certain applicants must be selected. Jacksonville has 

outstanding lawyers and judges, and I have the upmost respect for 

them. It is undisputable that there have been numerous wellqualified Jacksonville applicants to the First District, including 

making the short list, who were not selected in recent history or by 
- 20 -

different governors over the last 20 years. But it is the governor’s 

selection, not the inability to attract well-qualified applicants, that 

is relevant under the rule. See generally art. V, § 11, Fla. Const. 

(the governor fills vacancies in judicial office).

Further, the majority accepts the Committee’s certification 

justification to provide adequate access to oral arguments. Again, 

this has no basis. The First District has panels that regularly travel 

to Jacksonville for oral arguments, in addition to Pensacola and 

Orlando (workers compensation cases). And all of the oral 

arguments are available live on the internet on the First District’s 

website.

Rule 2.241(b)(8) has not been properly considered by the

majority:

(8) Whether or not an assessment committee is 

appointed, the supreme court shall balance the potential 

impact and disruption caused by changes in judicial 

circuits and appellate districts against the need to 

address circumstances that limit the quality and 

efficiency of, and public confidence in, the judicial 

process. Given the impact and disruption that can arise 

from any alteration in judicial structure, prior to 

recommending a change in judicial circuits or appellate 

districts, the supreme court shall consider less disruptive 

adjustments including, but not limited to, the addition of 

judges, the creation of branch locations, geographic or 

subject-matter divisions within judicial circuits or 
- 21 -

appellate districts, deployment of new technologies, and 

increased ratios of support staff per judge.

This rule emphasizes that the Court should consider the 

disruptive effect of changes and attempt to minimize it by other 

means first. The cost for a new district court of appeal is very 

expensive. The September 13, 2021, letter to Judge Scales, Chair of 

the Committee, from Judge Roberts, Chair of the DCA Budget 

Commission, notes significant fiscal impacts including facilities, 

staffing, and operational expenses that would necessitate additional 

funding without causing significant negative fiscal impact on the 

current district court budget. The disruptions to the branch are 

significant. See majority op. at 13-15 (describing realignment 

boundaries and current judges). This certification is analogous to 

rebuilding a ship for what should be swapping out a couple of deck 

chairs at most.

Rule 2.241(b)(1) states that the Court “shall certify a necessity 

to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and appellate 

districts when it determines that the judicial process is adversely 

affected by circumstances that present a compelling need for the 

certified change.” (Emphasis added.) There is no compelling need 
- 22 -

for adding an additional district court of appeal. The majority 

makes no such finding.

Rule 2.241(b)(2) provides that the Court “may certify a 

necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and 

appellate districts when it determines that the judicial process 

would be improved significantly by the certified change.” The 

Committee provides no objective justification that the judicial 

process will be improved significantly by adding an additional 

district court of appeal.

The Court’s rules and its responsibilities, along with the 

Legislature, in the certification process are at the direction of the 

Florida Constitution. As explained by article V, section 9 of the 

Florida Constitution, titled “Determination of number of judges”:

The supreme court shall establish by rule uniform 

criteria for the determination of the need for additional 

judges except supreme court justices, the necessity for 

decreasing the number of judges and for increasing, 

decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 

circuits. If the supreme court finds that a need exists for 

increasing or decreasing the number of judges or 

increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts 

and judicial circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular 

session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its 

findings and recommendations concerning such need. 

Upon receipt of such certificate, the legislature, at the 

next regular session, shall consider the findings and 
- 23 -

recommendations and may reject the recommendations 

or by law implement the recommendations in whole or in 

part; provided the legislature may create more judicial 

offices than are recommended by the supreme court or 

may decrease the number of judicial offices by a greater 

number than recommended by the court only upon a 

finding of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of 

the legislature, that such a need exists. A decrease in 

the number of judges shall be effective only after the 

expiration of a term. If the supreme court fails to make 

findings as provided above when need exists, the 

legislature may by concurrent resolution request the court 

to certify its findings and recommendations and upon the 

failure of the court to certify its findings for nine 

consecutive months, the legislature may, upon a finding of 

two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the 

legislature that a need exists, increase or decrease the 

number of judges or increase, decrease or redefine 

appellate districts and judicial circuits.

(Emphasis added.)

Specifically, the Florida Constitution authorizes the 

Legislature to make its own determination regarding appellate 

districts notwithstanding what the Court determines, with a twothirds vote of the membership of both houses. Accordingly, if the 

Court were to determine there is no justification for changes under 

its rules, the Legislature is free to act according to the Constitution 

and draw the lines as a policy decision to provide more Jacksonville 

judges. That is the proper response to the Committee’s 

recommendation.
- 24 -

Because there is not a compelling need or significant 

improvement to the judicial process as required by rule 2.241(b), I 

would not certify a new district court of appeal or any additional 

district court of appeal judges.

I respectfully dissent.

Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Appellate 

Judges
- 25 -

APPENDIX

District Court Need

District 

District 

Court 

Certified 

Judges

1 0

2 1

3 0

4 0

5 5

6 0

Total 6
- 26 -

Recommended Realignment of Districts

Counties and Judicial Circuits Affected

County Circuit Current 

District 

Proposed 

District

Clay Fourth First Fifth

Duval Fourth First Fifth

Nassau Fourth First Fifth

Orange Ninth Fifth Second

Osceola Ninth Fifth Second

Pasco Sixth Second Sixth

Pinellas Sixth Second Sixth

DeSoto Twelfth Second Sixth

Manatee Twelfth Second Sixth

Sarasota Twelfth Second Sixth

Hillsborough Thirteenth Second Sixth