The Florida Supreme Court Friday declined to accept jurisdiction to review the case of Jordan Hector v. State of Florida (SC14-1207). The Court's docket reflects its decision:
"Upon consideration of the responses to this Court's order to show cause, this Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction. It is hereby ordered that the petition for review is denied. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2)."
In early January, I explained the history of Brock and Hector in Brock is gone, is Hector next, in the Florida Court or the U.S. Supreme?
Now we know one answer, Hector was next to be declined by the Florida Supreme Court. The two cases are similar and when the Court declined to hear Brock, but did not simultaneously address Hector, there was curiosity in the community. Was the Court going to address Fla. Stat. § 440.105(4)(b)9? The short answer is now "no."
Why was Hector declined by the Court months after Brock? In the 1970s venerated candy-maker Tootsie Roll ran an ad campaign questioning how many licks it takes to reach the center of a Tootsie-Pop. The outcome in the ad was the conclusion that the "world will never know." The answer regarding why the Hector decline of jurisdiction was slower than the Brock decline is likely in that category. It was slower because it was. No gain is likely to come from wondering why they were different in timing. The fact is that they were the same in outcome, jurisdiction denied.
And now we will watch the U.S. Supreme Court. With issues of free speech, same-gender marriage, campaign finance, and more before it this year, will the Court take up the constitutionality of this Florida statute? Time will tell.
