Peter Schorsch
In a major legal blow to Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has dismissed his appeal of a $63.5 million judgment for retaliatory conduct against two local businessmen.
The ruling marks the latest — and potentially final — turn in a yearslong legal saga that could now have serious ethical and political consequences for Carollo.
William “Bill” Fuller and Martin Pinilla II, two Miami businessmen, sued Carollo in 2018, alleging that he used city agencies to target their businesses in retaliation for their support of his political opponent during the 2017 municipal elections.
After a 24-day trial in 2023, a federal jury found that Carollo had indeed violated the businessmen’s First Amendment rights, awarding millions in compensatory and punitive damages. Carollo challenged the verdict on multiple fronts, including alleged jury tampering and excessive damages.
But in its July 17 decision, the 11th Circuit firmly rejected Carollo’s arguments. Writing for the panel, the court concluded that the lower court had “sufficiently investigated Carollo’s claims of jury tampering” and that the interaction in question was “harmless.” The court also found it lacked jurisdiction to review Carollo’s other claims because of procedural missteps in his notice of appeal.
“The district court properly responded to and investigated Juror 3’s contact with (a member of the plaintiffs’ circle),” the panel wrote. “Once it completed that investigation, the district court took appropriate measures to ensure the jury remained fair and impartial to both parties.”
The decision raises immediate questions about Carollo’s status as a public official. Legal experts say the civil judgment — along with the appellate court’s affirmation — may open the door to action under Florida Statute 112.51, which permits the Governor to suspend or remove elected officials for malfeasance, misfeasance, or neglect of duty.
“This is no longer a political dispute or just a civil case — it’s a validated court finding of intentional harm by an elected official using the power of his office,” said one Miami-based legal ethicist who requested his name be withheld. “That’s the textbook definition of malfeasance under Florida law.”
Florida Statute 112.51 defines malfeasance as “an intentional act that is illegal and causes physical or monetary harm to another party.” With more than $60 million in damages upheld by the courts, some experts argue that the threshold has been met.
Moreover, the city of Miami may be forced to reconsider its financial support of Carollo’s legal defense. To date, taxpayers have footed the bill for his attorneys — costs that are only legally defensible if Carollo acted within the scope of his official duties.
“This ruling essentially confirms that Carollo acted outside his lawful authority, which could mean the city is no longer obligated — or even permitted — to continue paying his legal fees,” said a government accountability expert familiar with municipal ethics rules.
It is expected that over the coming days, advocacy groups and local leaders will start privately exploring the process of petitioning the Governor’s Office to consider suspension proceedings, citing the court’s finding as grounds for removal.
As one legal analyst noted, “There’s only so long an elected official can carry the weight of a $60 million judgment before the system — or the voters — respond.”
We tried to reach out to Carollo for comment on the ruling. We will update with any comments.
