A rapid succession of executive actions, each swiftly met with legal challenges in federal district courts across the nation, marked the opening chapters of the Trump Administration. These legal challenges, spanning issues from immigration policy to public health funding, ignited a fierce debate concerning the boundaries of executive authority. In response, the administration frequently invoked the doctrine of separation of powers, asserting that judicial intervention encroached upon the president's constitutionally granted powers. For example, the Trump Administration’s acting Solicitor General, Sarah M. Harris, wrote that federal judges have issued more than 40 temporary restraining orders or injunctions blocking administration programs.¹ Solicitor General Harris opined, “[t]he court’s extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the executive branch’s power of personnel management on the flimsiest grounds and the hastiest of timelines.”² This confrontation has set the stage for a series of high-stakes legal battles, testing the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

The foundational principle of separation of powers extends beyond the federal sphere and plays an equally critical role in understanding the structure and limitations of governance within the State of Florida. Consequently, when considering legal action against state or local entities, the separation of powers, alongside doctrines like sovereign immunity, becomes a key determinant in navigating the legal landscape. The Florida Constitution expressly invokes the separation of powers doctrine as follows, “[t]he powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”³ The “separation of powers doctrine” encompasses two fundamental prohibitions: first, that no branch may encroach on the powers of another,⁴ and second, that no branch may delegate to another branch its constitutionally assigned power.⁵

For example, a Superintendent of Schools for Okaloosa County could not sue the School Board of Okaloosa County for her attorney’s fees and costs incurred from challenging a suspension order issued by the Governor pursuant to his power under Article IV, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution because of the separation of powers doctrine.⁶ The Florida appellate court determined that the Superintendent had exhausted her limited mechanism for challenging her suspension by requesting a hearing with the Florida Senate.⁷ “This should end the judicial inquiry, as the separation of powers doctrine provides that one branch may not encroach upon the powers of another ... At bottom, there is simply no constitutional space, or judicially discoverable or manageable standards, for a court to determine whether [Superintendent] ‘successfully defend[ed] against unfounded allegations of official misconduct.’”⁸ Similarly, based on the separation of powers doctrine, Florida courts have determined that judges cannot direct executive agencies to spend money in a particular way,⁹ cannot enter into a decision-making process delegated to a state agency,¹⁰ or cannot dismiss criminal charges against a juvenile on the court’s own motion.¹¹

Although separation of powers concerns often arise in structural constitutional challenges, litigants asserting private rights of action are more likely to encounter issues of sovereign immunity, which can bar relief even where they allege a clear statutory or constitutional violation. In simple terms, sovereign immunity means that a litigant cannot sue the government without its permission. The State of Florida allows lawsuits against state entities under limited circumstances. These issues arise across many industries and areas of law.

For instance, the separation of powers doctrine limits or completely excludes certain policy-making, planning, or judgmental governmental functions from traditional tort liability.¹² Florida’s sovereign immunity statute allows individuals to bring tort claims against the state government for property loss and personal injury, subject to certain limitations, such as limiting payouts in negligence cases to $200,000 for one person and $300,000 for each incident.¹³

Likewise, sovereign immunity issues may arise in  construction, one of the most prominent industries in Florida, where the state or a municipality leases public property to private tenants and those tenants hire contractors to provide services or materials. What recourse does a contractor have when hired to perform work for a tenant leasing government-owned property?¹⁴ Unlike property owned by private citizens, contractors cannot lien real property owned by the state or any county, municipality, school board, or governmental agency, commission, or political subdivision.¹⁵ In those cases, the contractors providing services or materials to the tenant have lien rights on the tenant’s leasehold interest, and not on the real property itself. In short, the contractor can record a claim of lien against the tenant’s interest in its lease under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes.

Other entities or bodies that enjoy sovereign immunity include:

1. federally-recognized Indian tribes¹⁶;
2. community development districts¹⁷;
3. public hospitals¹⁸;
4. county school boards¹⁹;
5. public universities²⁰;
6. private nonprofit medical school affiliated with a public teaching hospital²¹

Although wide-reaching, sovereign immunity is not absolute. Government entities can be sued when Florida statutes expressly permit it, or when the entity breaches a written agreement, but those waivers often include strict conditions precedent to bringing suit.²² Whether you are an entity that sovereign immunity protects or a private party engaging in business with a protected entity, it is imperative to have legal counsel who understands the myriad limitations, exceptions, and conditions precedent associated with disputes involving sovereign immunity.

1. See Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Pauses Ruling Requiring Rehiring of 16,000 Probationary Workers, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2025). ↩
2. Id. ↩
3. See Art. II, § 2, Fla. Const. ↩
4. See e.g., Jackson v. Sch. Bd. of Okaloosa County, 326 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Barnett v. Antonacci, 122 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); State v. W.D., 112 So. 3d 702 (Fla.4th DCA 2013); Abdool v. Bondi, 141 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2014). ↩
5. See De Jesus Abreu v. Riverland Elementary Sch., 301 So. 3d 1005, 382 Ed. Law Rep. 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). ↩
6. Jackson v. Sch. Bd. of Okaloosa Cnty., 326 So. 3d at 724. ↩
7. See id.; see also Article IV, § 7. Fla. Const. (“The senate may, in proceedings prescribed by law, remove from office or reinstate the suspended official and for such purpose the senate may be convened in special session by its president or by a majority of its membership.”) ↩
8. Id. at 725–26. ↩
9. See Brown v. Feaver, 726 So.2d 322, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). ↩
10. See Agency for Persons with Disabilities v. J.M., 924 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). ↩
11. See State v. D.D.B., 737 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). ↩
12. See Broward  County  v.  Manarite,  333  So.  3d  1130  (Fla.  4th  DCA  2022). ↩
13. § 768.28, Fla. Stat. ↩
14. James B. Pirtle Constr., Co. v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc., 329 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). ↩
15. §§ 713.01(26) and 713.05, Fla. Stat. ↩
16. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Manzini, 361 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“As a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Seminole Tribe has almost a 200-year experience of a common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.”). ↩
17. § 190.043, Fla. Stat. ↩
18. Lee Mem’l Health Sys. v. Hilderbrand, 304 So. 3d 58  (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). ↩
19. S.S. v. Sch. Bd. of Sarasota Cnty., 357 So. 3d 802, 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). ↩
20. Heine v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 360 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). ↩
21. Lazzari v. Guzman, 314 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). ↩
22. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Fla., 361 So. 3d at 887 (“Because sovereign immunity waivers must be strictly construed, procedural requirements for the waiver should be strictly followed to enforce the waiver.”). ↩