Florida Carry, Inc. faced a setback in its legal battle against Florida State University (FSU) regarding the university's policies on firearms possession. The First District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled that Florida Carry must first exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing its claims in court. This decision affects how individuals and organizations can challenge university regulations related to firearms.
The case, Florida Carry, Inc. v. John E. Thrasher, an Individual, and Florida State University, was filed on March 11, 2021, under docket number 1D20-0412. Florida Carry, a nonprofit organization advocating for gun rights, argued that FSU's regulations on firearms were unlawful. The organization contended that it should be allowed to file a lawsuit directly in circuit court rather than being required to go through the administrative process established by FSU.
The dispute arose when Florida Carry challenged certain administrative regulations and policies concerning the possession of firearms on the university's campus. The trial court dismissed the case, stating that Florida Carry had not exhausted the administrative remedies available under section 1001.706(2)(c) of the Florida Statutes. This section mandates notice, public comment, and a process for individuals to challenge university regulations that have not been properly adopted or are deemed unlawful.
Florida Carry argued that the right to challenge the university's firearm restrictions should not be contingent upon going through administrative channels. However, the court maintained that both the rights set forth in section 790.33 of the Florida Statutes and the administrative remedies established under section 1001.706(2)(c) can coexist. The court emphasized that a litigant generally must exhaust available administrative remedies unless extraordinary circumstances justify bypassing them.
The court ruled, "As a general rule, a litigant must exhaust available administrative remedies, but exceptions exist, such as when doing so would be futile or exigent circumstances exist that justify going directly into circuit court." The judges on the panel included Judges Lewis, Makar, and Long, with Judge Long writing a concurring opinion.
In the concurring opinion, Judge Long highlighted that the administrative process could help resolve issues regarding whether university rules align with state firearms regulations. He noted that section 790.33 provides for uniform firearms laws in Florida, and a determination is needed on whether the university's regulations conflict with state law.
The ruling means that Florida Carry, Inc. must first engage with the administrative processes established by FSU before pursuing legal action in court. This could set a precedent for similar cases involving challenges to university regulations, emphasizing the importance of exhausting administrative remedies.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Florida Carry and FSU. Other organizations and individuals seeking to challenge university policies regarding firearms or other regulations may now be required to navigate administrative processes before taking their disputes to court. This could impact the speed and manner in which such challenges are addressed.
Moving forward, Florida Carry may still pursue its claims but must first engage in the administrative process as outlined by the court. The ruling does not prevent them from ultimately seeking judicial review if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the administrative proceedings. The court's decision reinforces the need for parties to follow established procedures before resorting to litigation.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Florida Carry intends to pursue the administrative remedies or if there are plans to appeal the court's ruling. The outcome of this case may influence how similar disputes are handled in Florida's higher education system, particularly concerning firearm regulations.