Ricky Polston

Justice Polston was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 2008. He served as Chief Justice from 2012-2014.  

Notable Cases:

• Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Implementation of Amendment 4, The Voting Restoration Amendment (2020): Justice Polston signed the per curiam majority opinion, which held that an amendment restoring voting rights to felons upon completion of "all terms of sentence" required the fulfillment of legal financial obligations (LFOs) (1-2). The court held that legislative intent was not a solid basis for interpretation; instead, it said that the statute should be construed according to its plain meaning (14). The court referred to the canons of interpretation (18). It also noted that similar language had been interpreted accordingly in other jurisdictions (21).
• Lawrence v. State (2020): Justice Polston signed the per curiam majority opinion, which held that "the conformity clause of article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution [forbid] [the] Court from analyzing death sentences for comparative proportionality in the absence of a statute establishing that review" (1-2). The court reasoned that the conformity clause requires that Florida’s prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments be interpreted in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment (7). The Supreme Court held that proportionality review was not mandatory in Pulley v. Harris (1984) (7). As a result, the court overturned its precedent of Yacob v. State (2014), which had read a proportionality requirement into Florida law (8), arguing that the court cannot mandate review where there is no statutory requirement (11). Footnote 5 emphasized that the court's duty was to follow the constitution, rather than to create good policy (13). The court took into account whether stare decisis should lead it to uphold Yacob (12).
  
• League of Women Voters of Florida v. Scott (2017): Justice Polston signed the per curiam majority opinion. The Court dismissed a petition to restrain the governor’s future conduct because it was not within the court’s authority to do so (1-2). The court declined the option (laid out in the dissent) to expand the court’s historical use of quo warranto in the interests of “the overarching principles of our democracy” (12).
• Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al. v. State of Florida (2013): Justice Polston wrote a concurrence in part and dissent in part. That opinion agreed with the majority that 1) the legislature can constitutionally restrain the courts from removing public defenders based only on the defenders' excessive workloads, 2) the constitution requires the courts to grant public defenders' requests to be removed from cases that the public defenders are too busy to provide effective counsel for, and 3) the state has standing to oppose defenders' motions to be removed from cases (46). The dissenting part of the opinion argued that the courts should only remove public defenders from particular cases where the defenders have shown that they cannot provide adequate counsel (46). Justice Polston’s opinion encouraged the court to avoid a sweeping policy about groups of cases when it was possible to protect defendants' constitutional rights on a case-by-case basis.
• In re: Amendment to Rule Regulation the Florida Bar 6-10.3 (2021): Justice Polston signed the per curiam majority opinion, which held that a Florida Bar rule setting a minimum requirement for diverse continuing legal education faculty violated the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) by instituting a quota based on characteristics such as "race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and multiculturalism" (1). The court also amended rule 6-10.3(d) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to prohibit such requirements and ordered the Bar to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the amended rule (2-3). Court allowed 74 days for public comment on the updated rule (3)
• In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code (2019): Justice Polston signed the per curiam majority opinion. The court adopted the Daubert amendments to the state evidence code (1), which provided that "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable" among other provisions (6) and the Frye standard was replaced (2). Justice Luck's dissent argued that the majority did not follow the proper procedure for adopting procedural rules (19).

Judge Voter Guide gave 4 Stars and voted to "retain."