Florida Supreme Court Rejects Florida Bar's Jihad Against Free Speech in Major Precedent Setting Case Protecting Candidates Political Speech
The Florida Supreme Court delivered an important precedent setting decision in a pivotal First Amendment case involving a former candidate for State Attorney. In The Florida Bar v. Christopher W. Crowley the Florida Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and ruled against the Florida bar’s Jihad against free speech. This case protects the First Amendment Rights of attorneys and indirectly other professions in the State of Florida.
Christopher Crowley, a Florida attorney and prosecutor, ran for State Attorney in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in 2017. Crowley, the loser in a Republican Primary race then was on the recipient end on what many considered politically motivated and frivolous charges by the Florida Bar. During the campaign he made numerous public statements criticizing his opponent, Amira Fox, including allegations concerning her conviction record, handling of criminal cases, alleged interference with a grand jury, alleged involvement in Crowley’s criminal arrest during the campaign, and allegations of being corrupt.
The Florida Bar charged Crowley with violating Rule 4-8.2(a), which prohibits lawyers from making statements they know to be false, or make with reckless disregard for the truth, concerning the qualifications or integrity of candidates for judicial or legal office. A referee found that Crowley had violated the rule and recommended a 60-day suspension.
The principal issue was whether the First Amendment permits The Florida Bar to discipline a lawyer for allegedly false campaign speech made during a partisan election for State Attorney. The attempt to censor and discipline Crowley’s speech appears part of a larger strategy to use regulatory agencies and licensing boards to censor the free speech of professionals as enunciated in Attorney Lisa Miron’s book World On Mute.
The Florida Supreme Court held that applying Rule 4-8.2(a) to Crowley’s campaign speech violated the First Amendment.
The Court rejected the referee’s recommendation and declined to impose discipline.
The Court’s analysis rested on several constitutional principles.
1. Political campaign speech receives the highest constitutional protection.
The Court emphasized that speech concerning candidates for elected office lies at the core of First Amendment protection. It quoted numerous United States Supreme Court decisions recognizing that debate over the qualifications of candidates is fundamental to self-government.
2. Rule 4-8.2(a) is a content-based restriction.
The Court explained that the rule regulates speech based on its content because it only applies to statements regarding a candidate’s “qualifications or integrity.”
Since enforcement depends upon examining what the speaker said, the rule is a content-based regulation of speech, triggering strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review.
3. The Bar failed strict scrutiny.
To survive strict scrutiny, the Bar had to prove a compelling governmental interest, and that the rule was narrowly tailored. The Bar argued that disciplining Crowley was necessary to preserve confidence in the judicial system.
The Court disagreed. Although protecting confidence in the judiciary can justify restrictions involving judges or ongoing litigation, the Court concluded that this interest was insufficient when applied to campaign speech in a partisan election for State Attorney.
4. State attorneys are politicians, not judges.
A major theme of the opinion is the distinction between judicial candidates and candidates for partisan legal offices.
The Court noted that candidates for State Attorney run in partisan elections, may affiliate with political parties, receive political endorsements, solicit campaign contributions, and campaign on controversial political issues.
Judicial candidates, by contrast, are subject to unique ethical restrictions designed to preserve judicial neutrality.
Because State Attorney races are political elections, the Court concluded that restrictions appropriate for judicial elections cannot automatically be extended to prosecutors.
5. Even inaccurate or offensive campaign speech is often protected.
The Court expressly acknowledged that Crowley’s statements could have been inaccurate, offensive, or misleading.
Nevertheless, the First Amendment protects robust political debate, requiring tolerance of even harsh and insulting speech during elections. The Court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that open political discussion requires “breathing space.”
Other disciplinary charges
The Bar also alleged violations of Rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d).
The Court rejected both:
Rule 4-8.4(d) did not apply because Crowley’s campaign activities were not connected with the practice of law.
Rule 4-8.4(a) depended upon a violation of Rule 4-8.2(a), so once that claim failed, this charge also failed.
Justice Muñiz’s concurrence
Justice Muñiz agreed with the result but observed that the Court could potentially have resolved the case by interpreting Rule 4-8.2(a) differently rather than reaching the constitutional question.
He suggested the Bar and the Court should consider amending the rule in light of evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.
Significance
This decision establishes that attorney campaign speech is fully protected by the First Amendment when made during partisan elections for legal offices such as State Attorney; attorney disciplinary rules restricting such speech are subject to strict scrutiny; preserving confidence in the judicial system is not, by itself, a sufficient justification for restricting political speech in partisan campaigns; lawyers do not lose ordinary First Amendment protections simply because they are licensed professionals. For Florida constitutional and attorney-discipline law, the case marks a significant limitation on The Florida Bar’s ability to sanction lawyers for political campaign speech outside the courtroom.
This case will likely restrict the ability or other professional boards to restrict political speech involving political campaigns and activity.
Prior Stories on This Case:
The Florida Bar’s War Against Free Speech - November 23, 2022
The Rutherford Institute Takes on Florida Bar’s War on Free Speech - November 10, 2023
Florida Supreme Court Should Sanction the Florida Bar - Dec 29, 2023
Florida Bar’s Maoist War on Free Speech Continues - May 10, 2024
Florida Supreme Court Case Could Affect Professionals’ Right to Free Speech - May 28, 2025
Crowley Free Speech Case Oral Argument - Jun 04, 2025
Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.
Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.
Thanks for reporting.
Thank God, there is hope for an occupied State of Florida.