Title: In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC20-1668
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 2020

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC20-1668 
______________ 
 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
December 3, 2020 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s 
need for additional judges in fiscal year 2021/2022 and to certify our “findings and 
recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida Legislature.1  Certification 
is “the sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and 
 
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 
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations 
concerning such need. 
 
- 2 - 
uniform assessment of this need.”  In re Certification of Need for Additional 
Judges, 889 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2004). 
In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 287 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 
2019), last year’s opinion, certified the need for two additional circuit court 
judgeships in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in 
the First Judicial Circuit, one additional circuit court judgeship in the Fourteenth 
Judicial Circuit, four additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough County, 
one additional county court judgeship in Orange County, and one additional county 
court judgeship in Lee County.  In that opinion, we also decertified the need for 
two county court judgeships in Brevard County, one county court judgeship in 
Monroe County, and one county court judgeship in Collier County. 
The Legislature authorized the ten additional trial court judgeships, as 
certified, in the Florida Statutes2 and appropriated funding in the fiscal year 
2020/2021 General Appropriations Act3 for them, as well as for complementary 
staff support positions.  The Governor approved the statutory changes4 but vetoed 
 
2.  Fla. HB 5301, §§ 1-2 (2020) (enrolled) (amending section 26.031, Florida 
Statutes, to authorize the four circuit court judgeships, and section 34.022, Florida 
Statutes, to authorize the six county court judgeships).  
3.  Fla. HB 5001, § 7, at 414, 417 (2020) (enrolled) (provisos accompanying 
specific appropriations 3222, 3224, 3236, 3238, 3240, and 3246). 
4.  Ch. 2020-112, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla.  In his letter to the Secretary of State 
transmitting his approval of the legislation, the Governor stated, “I simply do not 
believe that it is fiscally prudent to employ the additional judges at this time.  
However, by signing HB 5301, we will preserve the establishment of these 
 
- 3 - 
the funding due to statewide budget concerns stemming from the Coronavirus 
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.5  The Florida Supreme Court asks that the 
Legislature again fund those judgeships in the fiscal year 2021/2022 General 
Appropriations Act.   
The ten new judgeships authorized during the 2020 legislative session but 
for which the funding was vetoed were considered to be in existence for purposes 
of conducting the analysis in support of this year’s certification opinion.  In this 
opinion we are certifying the need for one additional circuit court judgeship in the 
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, two additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough 
County, and no additional judgeships in the district courts of appeal.  We decertify 
no district court, circuit court, or county court judgeships. 
To make this decision, the Court continues to use a verified objective 
weighted caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need.6  
The objective data are supplemented by judgeship requests submitted by the lower 
courts, including descriptions of the impact of various secondary factors.  These 
secondary factors identified by each chief judge reflect local differences in support 
 
additional judgeships with the hope that they can be funded as the state budget 
outlook improves.”  Letter from Governor Ron DeSantis to Secretary of State 
Laurel M. Lee (June 29, 2020).   
5.  Ch. 2020-111, § 7, Laws of Fla.  
6.  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. Jud. Admin. 2.240. 
 
- 4 - 
of their requests for more judgeships or in support of their requests for this Court 
not to decertify judgeships in situations where the objective case weights alone 
would indicate excess judicial capacity.  Applying the criteria in this two-step 
methodology, we conclude that the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit has a demonstrable 
need for an additional circuit court judgeship and Hillsborough County has a 
demonstrable need for two additional county court judgeships.  Considered in 
isolation, the two-step analysis also suggested the decertification of two county 
court judgeships in Brevard County and one county court judgeship each in 
Alachua, Collier, and Monroe counties.  However, the Court determines that the 
secondary factor analysis, coupled with recent statutory amendments and other 
relevant circumstances further explained below, militates against decertification of 
any trial court judgeships.   
Our evaluation of these matters takes into account developments in the way 
our courts perform their duties that are not currently captured by the weighted 
caseload methodology.  We also consider recently adopted legislation and rule 
changes that could have a significant impact. 
A number of issues require additional study, review, and consideration 
because they portend additional workload or limit our ability to accurately project 
judicial need.  In particular, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the circuit 
and county courts has been substantial.  Indeed, the pandemic has placed 
 
- 5 - 
extraordinary strains on our trial courts.  In response to the limitations imposed by 
the public health crisis, trial courts have been proactive in adapting court 
operations, including using technology to conduct proceedings remotely and help 
keep the work of the courts progressing.  Despite the innovative steps, a significant 
increase in pending workload is anticipated as the courts fully return to normal 
operations.  The additional caseload is attributed to:  proceedings, such as jury 
trials, in existing cases that necessarily were suspended or delayed to protect public 
health and safety; cases the courts anticipate but that are delayed in filing due to 
the onset of the pandemic; and new cases stemming from the public health 
emergency itself or from pandemic-related economic conditions.  As reflected in 
the State Courts System’s fiscal year 2021/2022 legislative budget request, the 
Trial Court Budget Commission has identified the need for temporary adjudicatory 
and case support resources to address this workload.  This approach is similar to 
the approach used during the foreclosure crisis, in which the court system 
requested, and the Legislature appropriated, funding for temporary resources such 
as case managers and senior judges to address the mounting caseload.  Likewise, 
all available existing judicial resources will be needed to contribute to the 
pandemic-recovery effort.  In these circumstances, we are loath to recommend the 
elimination of any judicial positions. 
 
- 6 - 
Another issue requiring consideration, because it influences this Court’s 
ability to accurately project judicial need, is the monetary jurisdiction change in 
county court.  Chapter 2019-58, section 9, Laws of Florida, increased the dollar 
amount threshold for the jurisdiction of the county court.  The Legislature took a 
phased approach to the implementation of this statutory revision.  Effective 
January 1, 2020, county court monetary jurisdiction increased from an upper limit 
of $15,000 to $30,000, and it is scheduled for a second increase to $50,000 on 
January 1, 2023.  The jurisdictional increase in county court can reasonably be 
expected to increase workload in the county courts and decrease workload in the 
circuit courts.  However, the jurisdictional change largely coincided with the onset 
of the COVID-19 pandemic and an associated decrease in overall court filings.  
Thus, it is not yet possible to determine precisely how these statutory revisions will 
affect workload among the tiers of court. 
Similarly, chapter 2020-61, sections 3 and 8, Laws of Florida, transfers 
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.  
(The law did not amend all instances of statutory circuit court appellate authority, 
and the circuit courts, therefore, will continue to have appellate jurisdiction for 
certain administrative decisions and certain county court decisions entered in 
noncriminal infraction and other cases.)  These changes regarding appellate review 
 
- 7 - 
will affect the respective distribution of judicial workload between the circuit and 
appellate courts when the law becomes effective on January 1, 2021. 
In addition to the uncertainty surrounding effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic and implementation of jurisdictional changes, this Court is reluctant to 
decertify judgeships while it is anticipated that the Court will be asked to consider 
revisions to the rules governing its certification analysis.  The Court directed its 
Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability to review Florida 
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240, Determination of Need for Additional 
Judges.  The review included an assessment of the secondary factors influencing 
judicial certification to determine if there are areas of inconsistency, overlap, or 
disjunction between current criteria in the case-weight formula and the unique 
local differences reported by the chief judges in the secondary factors portion of 
the evaluation of judicial need.  The Commission is expected to file proposed 
revisions to rule 2.240(c), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, to supplement 
the secondary factors prescribed in the rule to include, among other proposed 
additions, the existence and use of problem-solving courts.  The Commission’s 
proposed revisions to the secondary factors reflect concerns that trial court judges 
have been expressing about a need to review and possibly refine the method for 
reporting on the increased numbers and types of problem-solving courts 
 
- 8 - 
throughout the state and the increased number of cases handled by those problem-
solving courts. 
 
Having conducted a quantitative assessment of trial and appellate court 
judicial workload and having also considered the various qualitative factors, 
workload trends related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and jurisdictional changes, 
we certify the need for three additional trial court judgeships in Florida, consisting 
of one in circuit court and two in county court, as set forth in the appendix to this 
opinion.  We certify no need for additional judgeships in the district courts of 
appeal.  We also recommend no decertification of district court, circuit court, or 
county court judgeships.   
 
In addition to the certified need for three trial court judgeships described 
above, we respectfully request the Florida Legislature to again fund last year’s ten 
authorized judgeships.  Those judgeships, along with other resources requested 
through a legislative budget request this year, will assist the judicial branch in 
meeting demands associated with the pandemic-generated workload and court 
jurisdictional changes. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, 
and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges 
 
 
- 9 - 
APPENDIX 
Trial Court Need 
 
Circuit 
Circuit Court 
Certified 
Judges 
County 
County Court 
Certified 
Judges 
1 
0 
N/A 
0 
2 
0 
N/A 
0 
3 
0 
N/A 
0 
4 
0 
N/A 
0 
5 
0 
N/A 
0 
6 
0 
N/A 
0 
7 
0 
N/A 
0 
8 
0 
N/A 
0 
9 
0 
N/A 
0 
10 
0 
N/A 
0 
11 
0 
N/A 
0 
12 
0 
N/A 
0 
13 
0 
Hillsborough 
2 
14 
1 
N/A 
0 
15 
0 
N/A 
0 
16 
0 
N/A 
0 
17 
0 
N/A 
0 
18 
0 
N/A 
0 
19 
0 
N/A 
0 
20 
0 
N/A 
0 
Total 
1 
Total 
2