The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge on Wednesday against the state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference, House Speaker Paul Renner, and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo over the revision of the financial impact statement for a proposed constitutional amendment designed to limit government interference with abortion.

The challenge was initiated by Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. (FPF) and its chair, Sara Latshaw, who argued that the revised financial impact statement was unlawfully adopted without judicial oversight, in violation of statutory requirements. The petitioners claimed that state officials exceeded their legal authority by revising the statement without waiting for a court’s review, despite a Leon County Circuit Court ruling that had previously invalidated the original statement, which is intended to inform voters about the potential economic consequences of the proposed amendment.

The decision was predicated upon the Financial Impact Estimating Conference initially drafting a statement indicating that the economic impact of Amendment 4 could not be determined due to ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding Florida’s abortion laws. The statement was subsequently invalidated by a Leon County Circuit Court, which found it lacking in clarity and accuracy. The court ordered the conference to redraft the statement within 15 days and retained jurisdiction to review the new version.

Despite the court’s order and a pending appeal, the state reconvened the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, which issued a revised financial impact statement on July 15. The new statement included speculative impacts and non-financial considerations, which FPF and Latshaw contended violated the court’s directive and legal precedents. The First District Court of Appeal later dismissed the case as moot, declaring that the new statement rendered the original issue irrelevant.

FPF and Latshaw then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the revised statement should be invalidated because it was adopted without proper judicial oversight. However, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, stating that they had forfeited their right to challenge the Estimating Conference’s authority by participating in the revision process without objecting at the time.

“The petitioners never questioned the Estimating Conference’s authority to voluntarily adopt a revised financial impact statement,” the court noted in its opinion. “Instead, they actively participated in every step of the revision process without objection. These actions preclude the extraordinary relief the petitioners now seek.”

Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, writing for the majority, contended that the group’s involvement in the process without raising concerns constituted a waiver of their right to contest the panel’s actions later. Justice Jorge Labarga dissented, arguing that the court should have addressed the legality of the Estimating Conference’s actions, given the legal circumstances and the potential implications for the integrity of the ballot initiative process.