A Florida appeals court has ruled against the Broward County Sheriff, Gregory Tony, in a case involving the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The court's decision, issued on May 13, 2026, affects the ongoing legal battle regarding negligence claims brought by the victims' families. This ruling is significant as it addresses the issue of sovereign immunity for government officials in cases involving tragic events.

The case, officially titled Sheriff of Broward County v. Estate of Alyssa Alhadeff, was filed under docket number 4D2026-0114. It centers on the claims made by the families of the victims of the shooting, which left 17 people dead and many others injured. The court's ruling impacts not only the families involved but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

The parties involved in this case include the Broward County Sheriff, Gregory Tony, who is appealing a lower court's decision, and the Estate of Alyssa Alhadeff, one of the victims of the shooting. The families of the victims have brought forth claims against the Sheriff’s Office, alleging negligence in the handling of the shooter prior to the tragic incident. The case has made its way through the legal system and reached the District Court of Appeal of Florida.

The dispute arose when the Sheriff sought partial summary judgment, arguing that he should be protected by sovereign immunity regarding any negligence claims based on pre-shooting incidents involving the shooter. The trial court, however, denied this motion, stating that the plaintiffs did not include claims against the Sheriff based on pre-shooting actions in their complaint. This denial led to the Sheriff’s appeal, which was reviewed by the District Court of Appeal.

The court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the Sheriff’s motion for partial summary judgment. The opinion stated, “The plaintiffs’ complaint does not present a ‘nonjusticiable political question that is more appropriately committed to the resolution of a coordinate or constituent branch of government.’” This ruling indicates that the claims brought by the plaintiffs do not fall under the category of policy-level functions that would typically be protected by sovereign immunity.

The judges on the panel included Ciklin, Forst, and Shepherd, who concurred with the ruling. The court emphasized that the determination of whether to arrest the shooter is a policy-level function, but the claims made by the plaintiffs do not focus on those decisions. Instead, the court noted that the relevant pre-incident contacts between the Sheriff’s Office and the shooter could still be pertinent to operational-level claims, which do not invoke immunity at this stage.

This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing lawsuits related to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. It suggests that claims against government officials for negligence can proceed even when those officials argue for immunity. This could open the door for other victims of similar incidents to seek justice against government entities.

The court's decision also highlights the balance between governmental immunity and accountability for actions taken (or not taken) by law enforcement. The ruling may encourage other victims of violent incidents to pursue legal action against government officials, as it clarifies that not all claims will be dismissed based on sovereign immunity.

Going forward, the ruling allows the families of the victims to continue their pursuit of justice in the courts. It also sets a precedent that may influence how future cases involving government negligence are handled, particularly in situations involving mass shootings or other tragic events.

As for the next steps, the Sheriff may still seek to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The ongoing litigation will continue to unfold as both sides prepare for the next phases of the case.