STATEWIDE — The judge who has been considering the suspension case of Andrew H. Warren since mid-December is taking longer than expected and a law professor explains why that may be.
What You Need To Know
- Stetson University law professor Lou Virelli talked about the Andrew Warren case
- RELATED coverage: Andrew Warren's testimony kicks off trial for reinstatement
Warren, who was suspended as state attorney in Hillsborough County, opened his federal civil trial against Gov. Ron DeSantis in November of 2022 with testimony that alleged his removal was based on his personal political positions on abortion and transgender rights.
Warren was suspended by DeSantis in August of 2022. The Republican governor, flanked by law enforcement leaders during the announcement, said Warren was failing to enforce the laws of Florida based on his personal beliefs.
Warren, a Democrat suspended from his twice-elected post as state attorney in Hillsborough County, sued DeSantis seeking his reinstatement.
DeSantis suspended Warren over the prosecutor’s signing of statements that said he would not pursue criminal charges against seekers or providers of abortion or gender transition treatments, as well as his policies about not charging people with certain minor crimes.
Now, the question is asked: Is Judge Robert L. Hinkle taking his time to tell Floridians anything about which way the case will go? After all, his decision was expected before the new year.
Experts say probably not.
Stetson University law professor Lou Virelli talked about the Warren case and how long the judge is taking in his decision.
"It is very difficult to read into it based on the delay," he said.
That decision will be closely read and picked apart in Florida and nationally.
Virelli says the trial court judge right now is working to determine the facts in the case, specifically why warren was suspended.
Were there clear violations by warren or was this a retaliatory move by the governor?
The appellate court will use those facts to determine if Warren's First Amendment rights were violated.
"The trial courts contribution to this, and this is not unique to this case, this is always true. The trial courts deciding what happened. Because the appellate court will take their word for it. The standard review is clearly erroneous about when it comes to facts," said Virelli.
And because experts believe Warren's best shot at getting his job back is by fighting the First Amendment violation claims, a strong set of facts showing that would be in his favor in the appellate court.