Supreme Court of Florida

______________

No. SC2023-1586

______________

IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED

FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.

November 30, 2023

PER CURIAM.

This opinion addresses the need to increase or decrease the 

number of judges in fiscal year 2024-25 and certifies our “findings 

and recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida 

Legislature.1 Certification is “the sole mechanism established by 

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, 

decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 

circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the 
- 2 -

our constitution for a systematic and uniform assessment of this 

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

734, 735 (Fla. 2004). A separate opinion, to be released on a future 

date, will address the Court’s findings as to whether there is a need 

to decrease the number of judicial circuits.2 

In this opinion, we certify the need for one additional circuit

court judgeship (in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit) and five 

additional county court judgeships (three in Orange County and 

two in Hillsborough County). We certify no need for additional 

district court of appeal judgeships. We certify the need to decrease 

two county court judgeships (one each in Alachua and Brevard 

Counties) and certify that there is no need to decrease the number 

of circuit court judgeships. Although we certify there is no need to 

decrease the number of district court of appeal judgeships, we 

legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and 

recommendations concerning such need.

2. See In re Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee, Florida 

Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35 (June 30, 2023), which 

establishes a committee to study whether consolidation of the 

state’s existing judicial circuits is warranted. The committee’s 

findings and recommendations are due to the chief justice by 

December 1, 2023.
- 3 -

acknowledge excess judicial capacity in the First District Court of 

Appeal and the Second District Court of Appeal. As we explain, the 

Court recommends that the Legislature address this excess 

appellate judicial capacity over time by reducing the number of 

statutorily authorized judgeships based on attrition, without 

requiring a judge to vacate his or her position involuntarily. 

Trial Courts

The Court continues to use a verified objective weighted 

caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need 

for the trial courts.3 The case weighting system distinguishes the 

types of cases and addresses the differences in the amount of time

that must be spent on cases of each type, producing a total judicial 

need for each circuit. Additionally, the methodology includes

adjustments for differing jury trial rates, chief judge responsibilities, 

and canvassing boards in each circuit and county. The trial courts 

also submit judgeship needs applications that supplement the 

objective weighted caseload data, including descriptions of how 

3. Our certification methodology relies primarily on case 

weights and calculations of available judge time to determine the 

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

Admin. 2.240.
- 4 -

secondary factors4 are affecting those courts. The secondary factors 

identified by each chief judge reflect local differences in support of 

their requests for more judgeships or in support of their requests 

for this Court not to certify the need to decrease judgeships in 

situations in which the objective case weights alone would indicate

excess judicial capacity. 

For more than two decades, Florida’s trial courts have used a 

weighted caseload method to determine the need for judges in each 

of their circuit and county courts. The original recommendations of 

the 2000 Florida Delphi-Based Weighted Caseload Project: Final 

Report, and the subsequently modified Florida Rule of General

Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240, call for the weighted 

caseload method to be updated every five years. Recommendations 

from the last formal judicial workload assessment were published in 

May 2016. Given the impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 

4. Other factors that may be utilized in the determination of 

judicial need are prescribed in Florida Rule of General Practice and

Judicial Administration 2.240. 
- 5 -

pandemic and recent jurisdictional threshold changes5 within the 

trial courts, that cyclical review was necessarily delayed. It is

important for any new trial court case weights developed to be valid

and reliable and have a “shelf-life” to substantiate determinations of 

judicial need until the next formal methodology review. The Court 

is mindful that we are now seven years removed from updating the 

case weights used to evaluate trial court judicial workload. The 

Court has determined it appropriate to take a cautious approach to 

certifying the need to decrease judgeships until the new weights 

become available in summer 2024.

In early 2023, the Office of the State Courts Administrator 

began the process of updating all trial court case weights. This is a 

statewide effort involving all circuit court judges, county court 

judges, senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement 

hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers. Total 

annual workload is calculated by multiplying the annual filings for 

each case type by the corresponding case weight, then summing the 

5. Under chapter 2019-58, section 9, Laws of Florida, county 

court monetary jurisdiction increased to an upper limit of $30,000

on January 1, 2020, and increased to $50,000 on January 1, 2023. 
- 6 -

workload across all case types. Each court’s workload is then 

divided by a judge year value to determine the total number of fulltime equivalent judges needed to handle the workload. This 

workload assessment is comprehensive and will be carefully 

validated. As with previous workload studies, the Legislature is 

apprised through communication of study status to the Office of 

Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. Oversight 

of this initiative is being conducted by a Judicial Needs Assessment 

Committee and the Commission on Trial Court Performance and 

Accountability.6 As with previous studies, we have contracted with 

the National Center for State Courts7 to conduct the study with

assistance from the Office of the State Courts Administrator. The 

6. In re Commission on Trial Court Performance and 

Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-36 (July 28, 2022).

7. Staff of the National Center for State Courts are subject 

matter experts in evaluating judicial workload and have conducted 

similar workload studies in more than 30 states throughout the 

country. See Workload assessment, Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., 

http://www.ncsc.org/workload-assessment (last visited November 

20, 2023).
- 7 -

study formally began in January 2023 and is expected to conclude 

by June 2024.

Based on the analysis under the weighted caseload 

methodology, and using the existing case weights pending 

completion of the updated study, we conclude that there is a 

demonstrable need for an additional circuit court judge in the 

Twentieth Judicial Circuit. Additionally, under this same 

methodology, we conclude there is a demonstrable need for three 

additional county court judges for Orange County and two 

additional county court judges for Hillsborough County.8 The twostep analysis and consideration of other factors suggested the need 

to decrease circuit court judgeships in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit 

and the need to decrease county court judgeships in Alachua 

County and Brevard County. However, the Court determines that

other relevant circumstances further explained below, coupled with 

the secondary-factor analysis, militate against certifying the need to 

8. Applying the weighted caseload methodology, Walton 

County would appear to be eligible for an additional county court 

judgeship. However, if the Court were to certify the need for that 

judgeship, the county would immediately fall below the workload 

threshold suggesting the need to decrease that same judgeship.
- 8 -

decrease all but two of those county court judgeships, one 

judgeship in Alachua County and one judgeship in Brevard County. 

We base this recommendation on a demonstrated, multi-year trend 

of excess judicial capacity in those two counties.

The judicial needs applications submitted by the chief judges 

noted some limitations of the existing case weights to capture a

complete picture of case complexity addressed by trial court judges. 

Since the last case weight update in 2016, state laws have changed 

significantly, affecting the courts’ work in interpreting and applying 

those laws. Court operations have also changed significantly as a 

result of the pandemic. Further, trial court jurisdictional 

thresholds9 have changed, affecting workload in the circuit and 

county courts. 

The Court also considered other significant factors, including

the anticipated cases resulting from recent hurricanes that have 

affected the state and judicial time related to the implementation of

civil case management requirements.10 These factors contributed to 

9. See supra note 5. 

10. See In re COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols and 

Emergency Operational Measures for Florida Appellate and Trial 
- 9 -

the Court’s cautious approach to certifying the need to decrease

trial court judgeships.

District Courts of Appeal

In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the 

State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2024-25,11 this 

opinion certifies the need for no additional district court judgeships. 

At our direction,12 and pursuant to rule 2.240, the

Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and

Accountability reviewed the workload trends of the district courts of 

appeal and considered adjustments in the relative case weights. As 

in other district court workload assessments, the Commission 

conducted a review of the existing case types, identified the median 

case by which all other cases would be measured, and administered 

Courts, Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC21-17, Amendment 3 

(Jan. 8, 2022), which requires presiding judges to actively manage

civil cases, including issuing case management orders that address 

deadlines for serving complaints and extensions, adding new 

parties, completing discovery, resolving objections to pleadings, and 

resolving pretrial motions.

11. See supra note 1.

12. See In re Commission on District Court of Appeal 

Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-55 

(June 24, 2020).
- 10 -

a survey to district court judges to gather data on the workload 

associated with disposing cases by type. Case weights were then 

developed and applied to each court’s dispositions on the merits to 

determine the weighted caseload value. The weighted caseload 

model is a more accurate representation of judicial workload in that 

it addresses differences in the amount of judicial time that must be

spent on each type of case. The Court approved the updated 

weights in June 2023, and this certification opinion is based on 

those new case weights. 

The Court also recently directed13 the Commission on District 

Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability to examine the 

factors used to determine the need to certify increasing or 

decreasing the number of judges on a district court, the language 

regarding a presumption of need for an additional judgeship, and a 

means for evaluating if a district court has surplus judicial 

capacity. Given this ongoing review, the recent adjustment in 

district court case weights, and the excess district court of appeal 

13. See In re Commission on District Court of Appeal 

Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-24 

(July 12, 2022). 
- 11 -

capacity discussed below, the Court determined it would not be 

appropriate to certify the need for additional district court 

judgeships at this time.

As addressed in previous certifications of need for additional 

judges,14 the Court recognizes excess judicial capacity in the First 

District and the Second District based on the addition of a sixth 

district, corresponding jurisdictional boundary changes in three 

existing districts, and the policy decision not to require judges to 

relocate. However, the Court continues to recommend that this 

excess capacity be addressed over time through attrition and 

therefore is not certifying the need to decrease any district court 

judgeships.

Based on a current workload analysis,15 and as was noted in 

last year’s judicial certification opinion, we have determined that 

14. See In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for 

Addt’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2021); In re Certif. of 

Need for Addt’l Judges, 353 So. 3d 565, 568 (Fla. 2022). 

15. Cases disposed on the merits by the district courts of 

appeal were historically realigned, based on the current six district 

boundary lines, for the purpose of the workload calculations. Six

months of actual data were available for use for the new Sixth 

District Court of Appeal, and that data was combined with the 
- 12 -

there is estimated excess judicial capacity in the First District and 

Second District. To address this situation, this Court recommends 

that during the 2024 Regular Session the Legislature consider 

enacting legislation that provides for reduction in the number of 

statutorily authorized district court judgeships based on attrition 

and without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position 

involuntarily. Such legislation could specify that, upon each 

occurrence of an event that otherwise would have resulted in a 

vacancy in the office of judge of the First District or Second District, 

the number of authorized judges shall be reduced by one, until a 

specified number of judges remain on each court. We recommend 

that eventually, after attrition, there be 12 judges authorized for 

each of those courts.16 The goal of the Court’s recommended 

approach, consistent with last year’s opinion, is to address excess 

district court judicial capacity without prematurely ending an 

existing judge’s judicial career.

historical re-creation of that district court’s caseload for purposes of 

analysis. 

16. See Fla. SB 490 (2024) (proposed amendment to § 35.06, 

Fla. Stat.); Fla. HB 457 (2024) (same). 
- 13 -

The Court continues to use a verified objective weighted 

caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need

in the district courts of appeal,17 as well as considering qualitative 

factors and other factors analogous to those it considers in 

assessing trial court workload. Based on that analysis, the Court 

does not certify the need to increase or decrease judgeships in the 

district courts of appeal at this time. As the Court noted in its 

previous certification opinions, it will take some time to fully assess 

the effect of the jurisdictional boundary changes on workload and 

judicial need for any given district court and statewide. 

Conclusion

We have conducted a quantitative and a qualitative 

assessment of trial court and appellate court judicial workload. 

Using the case-weighted methodology and the application of other 

factors identified in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.240, we certify the need for one additional circuit

court judgeship in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, three additional 

17. 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.
- 14 -

county court judges for Orange County, and two additional county

court judges for Hillsborough County. We recommend no decrease 

in circuit court judgeships, a decrease of one county court 

judgeship in Alachua County, and a decrease of one county court 

judgeship in Brevard County. We certify no need for additional 

judgeships in the district courts of appeal. Finally, we recommend

legislation to reduce the number of statutorily authorized

judgeships in the First District and the Second District based on 

attrition and without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position 

involuntarily, as noted in this certification.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.

LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

SASSO, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in

which GROSSHANS, J., concurs.

LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons expressed in Justice Sasso’s concurring in 

part and dissenting in part opinion, I dissent from the majority’s 

opinion to the extent it decertifies judgeships in Alachua and 

Brevard counties.
- 15 -

However, I concur with the majority in all other respects, 

including its decision to decline to certify the need for an additional 

judge in the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

SASSO, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s decision to certify the need for 

additional judgeships in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit and in 

Orange and Hillsborough Counties. For the reasons I will explain 

though, I disagree with both the decision to certify a decreased need 

in Alachua and Brevard Counties and the decision not to certify the 

need for an additional judgeship in the Sixth District. 

Trial Courts

Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 

2.240 guides our determination of the need for additional judges 

and provides that we may consider two categories of data. The first 

and primary category is the quantitative data, based chiefly upon a 

workload measurement derived from the application of case weights 

to circuit and county court caseload statistics. See Fla. R. Gen. 

Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(A). The second is the qualitative 

data, which includes several factors that, while more difficult to 

quantify, help fully measure judicial workload. See Fla. R. Gen. 
- 16 -

Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(B), (c). To assess the qualitative 

factors, we largely rely on the annual reports and requests provided 

by the chief judge of each circuit.

This year, there is a considerable disconnect between the 

determination that flows from application of the quantitative 

measurement (the weighted caseload methodology) and the 

determination that flows from consideration of the chief judges’ 

reports and requests. For example, the weighted caseload 

methodology results in the determination that only one circuit, the 

Twentieth Circuit, has the need for an additional circuit judge. But 

eleven out of the state’s twenty circuits have requested at least one 

additional circuit judge, with some circuits requesting up to four 

additional judges. Similarly, the weighted caseload methodology 

results in the conclusion that eighteen county courts should have 

judicial positions decertified. But the chief judges do not agree, 

citing inter alia population growth, the increased request for 

interpreters, the number of county court judges performing circuit 

court work, and the substantial resources county court judges 

commit to community endeavors.
- 17 -

The cause for the disconnect is somewhat speculative, but 

there are a few things we know for sure. As the majority notes, the 

metrics underlying the weighted caseload methodology have not 

been evaluated since 2016, despite our determination that they 

should be reevaluated every five years. And as the majority notes, 

there is a good and valid explanation for that delay, but the fact 

remains that it has not been done. We also know that Florida’s 

court system has undergone considerable changes since 2016, 

including subject matter jurisdiction changes, a reconfiguration of 

the district courts, and lasting operational modifications resulting 

from the global pandemic. 

Given the clear disconnect between the quantitative and 

qualitative data, and what is likely an outdated mode of producing 

quantitative results, I agree with the majority’s cautious approach. 

However, in my view, it is not cautious enough. Until we have the 

benefit of a refined weighted caseload methodology, I believe we 

should maintain the status quo except where the formula results in 

a recommendation for additional judgeships. This approach better 

reflects the reports from the chief judges, which I find more 

persuasive than the results produced by applying the case weight 
- 18 -

methodology. For that reason, I respectfully dissent from the 

majority’s opinion to the extent that it certifies a decreased need for 

judgeships in Brevard and Alachua Counties.

District Courts

Only one district court, the newly created Sixth District, has 

requested an additional judge. This request would bring the 

number of judges serving the Sixth District to ten, which is the 

number of judges that this Court initially determined would 

accurately reflect the needs of the district. See In re Redefinition of 

App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for Addt’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 

706 (Fla. 2021). And while the Sixth District only has about a year 

of experience on which it can draw, the judges of that district have 

provided a thoughtful analysis outlining the inherent limitations of 

the current methodology’s ability to produce an accurate picture of 

the Sixth District’s needs. To fill the gap, the Sixth District draws 

on existing data to provide a more representative view of the 

district’s current and future needs. In doing so, the Sixth District 

makes a strong case for why this Court’s initial assessment was 

correct. For that reason, I would certify the need for an additional 
- 19 -

judge in the Sixth District, and I respectfully dissent from the 

portion of the majority’s opinion declining to do so.

GROSSHANS, J., concurs.

Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges