Did Ashley Moody overstep authority in $3.1B opioid settlement? Appellate court considers the case

An appeals court panel — in particular one Judge — is sharply questioning the authority of Attorney General Ashley Moody in a case involving the state’s $3.1 billion settlement with opioid manufacturers and distributors.

Moody’s Office sought to block several hospital districts, including Halifax Health and Broward Health, as well as the Miami-Dade School Board, from pursuing their own lawsuits against those involved in the opioid crisis even though those School Boards and districts were not part of the settlement reached by the state.

A circuit court Judge sided with Moody last year and said the Attorney General had the power to enter into settlements that overrode lawsuits pursued by other governments in the state. But Judges with the 1st District Court of Appeals had sharp questions for Moody’s Office that suggested they were uncomfortable with the assertions made by the state’s chief legal officer.

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Brad Thomas asked whether under the power asserted by Moody that a future Attorney General could sue every cattle rancher in the state over climate change — over the objections of a Governor and the Legislature — and a rural county would be powerless to stop it.

There doesn’t seem to be a real limit to the power of her ability to file suit on behalf of the state of Florida,” Thomas said.

Lawyers representing the hospital districts and School Boards contended that Moody’s actions misread past rulings and the authority granted the Attorney General by the Legislature. Well-known lawyer Barry Richard represented Halifax Health, while Joe Jacquot, who once worked as General Counsel for Gov. Ron DeSantis, represented Miami-Dade schools.

David Costello, Moody’s Deputy Solicitor General, countered that the Attorney General has broad and flexible power to initiate litigation on behalf of the state.

“Sometimes the state has to speak with one voice when it comes to its litigation power, but the state has placed its power in the hands of the Attorney General,” Costello told Judges.

When asked by Thomas about the hypothetical cattle rancher lawsuit, Costello did not dispute it could happen. Instead, he said there were checks on the Attorney General, such as the Legislature, which could pass a law prohibiting it, and voters, who could boot the Attorney General from office.

“If she abuses her power she has to face voters at the polls,” Costello argued.

Costello said the outcome of the case could impact the overall opioid settlement payout, depending on whether the districts and School Boards are able to win their own judgments against drug manufacturers and distributors.