Irrevocability Requirement for Government-Granted Property Interests under Florida’s Takings Clause

Introduction

In Gustavo Bojorquez, et al. v. State of Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida addressed whether statutory certificates and permits issued by the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission (PTC) in 2012 became “private property” protected by Article X, Section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution—so that their repeal in 2017 would constitute a compensable taking. The petitioners are taxicab companies that acquired PTC-issued instruments under the 2012 law, which declared those instruments “private property” and transferable. In 2017, the Legislature dissolved the PTC, repealed both its 2001 charter and the 2012 property-creation statute, and left local authorities free to regulate taxicabs without recognizing the old certificates. The companies sued the State and Hillsborough County for a taking without compensation. The trial and appellate courts ruled for the defendants on different grounds, and the Supreme Court of Florida granted review on the question of whether the 2017 repeal triggered the state Takings Clause.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously held that the 2012 law’s label “private property” did not confer an irrevocable, constitutionally protected property interest in PTC-issued certificates and permits. Because the statutory scheme remained silent on the permanence of those interests, and because the underlying 2001 charter expressly allowed revocation or nonrenewal, the Legislature retained the power to repeal the entire framework without owing compensation. The Court declined to adopt the Second District’s broader rule that statutory interests can never be protected, focusing instead on the irrevocability requirement drawn from federal precedents. Applying strict construction against the grantee, the Court concluded that the repeal did not violate Article X, Section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Leonard v. Baylen St. Wharf Co., 52 So. 718 (Fla. 1910): held that a franchise could be “private property” and protected.
• Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 167 So. 664 (Fla. 1936): emphasized that business licenses are revocable “privileges” absent explicit permanence.
• Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980): property interests derive from independent sources of law.
• Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934): contracts may be property for takings purposes.
• Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981): revocable, contingent attachments are not compensable.
• Members of the Peanut Quota Holders Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005): government-granted benefits must be intended as irrevocable to be protected.
• Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 572 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2009): regulatory change is anticipated absent express promise of permanence.
• National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451 (1985): courts will not construe regulatory schemes as private contracts unless clearly intended.

Legal Reasoning

1. Source of Property Rights: The Court noted that Florida’s Takings Clause protects property interests but does not create them. Any rights in PTC certificates and permits derive solely from the 2001 charter and the 2012 statute.

2. Irrevocability Requirement: Drawing on federal takings jurisprudence, the Court held that to qualify as constitutionally protected property, a statutory interest must be conveyed on an irrevocable basis for a definite term or otherwise accompanied by an express promise against withdrawal. Absent such language, the grantor retains discretion to repeal or modify.

3. Statutory Construction: Although the 2012 law labeled the instruments “private property” and authorized transfers, it did not explicitly override the 2001 charter’s provision allowing the PTC to revoke or refuse renewal. A repeal-of-inconsistencies clause was insufficiently clear to nullify that express reservation of power.

4. Regulatory Background: Florida’s historical treatment of taxicab licenses as revocable privileges reinforced the presumption that no permanent property right was conferred. The Court refused to infer a dramatic shift in policy from ambiguous statutory language.

Impact

• Legislatures granting property-style benefits must do so with explicit, express language of irrevocability if they wish to fix those benefits against future repeal without compensation.
• Courts will construe government grants strictly in favor of public control and against private grantees when permanence is unclear.
• Regulatory privileges, even when transferable, remain vulnerable to legislative change unless accompanied by contractual or long-term commitments readily identifiable in the text.
• Future takings claims based on statutory licenses, permits, or franchises will face a threshold inquiry into whether the grant created an irrevocable interest.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Takings Clause (Art. X, § 6(a)): “No private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation.” Protects only pre-existing property rights from uncompensated government action.
• Special District Certificates/Permits: Licenses authorizing taxicab operations in Hillsborough County, once administered by a state-created commission (PTC).
• Revocability vs. Irrevocability: If a benefit can be withdrawn at the government’s discretion, it is a mere privilege; only grants that the government expressly promises not to withdraw qualify as protected property.
• Repeal of Inconsistencies Clause: A catch-all provision that cannot override specific statutory language preserving government power unless the legislature speaks unambiguously.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in Gustavo Bojorquez establishes that statutory grants of “private property” must be irrevocable and clearly insulated from legislative repeal to trigger the Takings Clause. By requiring express commitments of permanence, the Court reinforces a foundational principle of constitutional property law: governments remain free to structure and restructure regulatory schemes unless they unmistakably bind themselves to maintain grants as protected property. This ruling will shape the drafting of future enabling statutes and raise the bar for plaintiffs asserting takings claims based on government- created privileges.