With the Florida Supreme Court‘s opinion releases on winter break till Jan. 12, severalĀ high-profile cases will remain unresolved in 2016.
Here are a few, starting withĀ the court’s official case summary:
ā Debaun v. State of Florida: “This case asks whether laws governing sexually transmissible diseases apply only when the parties involved are a man and a woman.”
Gary Debaun is trying to have a charge dismissed under a 1986 law designed to prevent the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus.
The case, argued in February, involvesĀ the definition of sexual intercourse in a case involving a gay man charged with not letting a partner know he was HIV-positive.
Lawyers for Debaun argued the law says it’s illegal not to disclose an HIV infection before “sexual intercourse,” but that definition only appeals to traditional sex between a man and a womanānot two men.
A lower court judge dismissed the charge against Debaun, but an appeals court reinstated it saying the law was clearly intended to include other sexual activity where there is a risk of transmitting the virus.
ā Florida Department of Revenue v. DirecTV: “This case challenges a state law that taxes satellite television providers at a higher rate than cable TV.”
The question here is whetherĀ satellite-television service be taxed at a higher rate than cable. Oral argument was held in April.
Satellite TV companies, includingĀ DirecTV, want the court to uphold theĀ 1st District Court of Appealās 2-1 decision last year, which said that taxing the two services differently is unconstitutional.Ā The stateās Revenue Department and Floridaās cable TV industry want it overturned.
At issue is the stateās communications services taxĀ (CST), which charges ādirect-to-home satellite serviceāĀ at a totalĀ rate of 11.44 percent. Cable TV, however, is taxed at a total of 7.44 percent. (The state reduced the CST effective last July 1.)
The lower courtās majority ruling held that different tax rates violate the U.S. Constitutionās Commerce Clause because theyĀ tend to benefit in-state cable companies over out-of-state satellite companies.
ā Gretna Racing v. DepartmentĀ of Business & Professional Regulation: “This case asks whether local voters can authorize the operation of slot machines in counties outside of Dade and Broward.”
A horse track in Gretna, Gadsden County, about 30 miles west of Tallahassee, is asking the court to let it have slot machines because voters approved them in a local referendum in 2012.
If the court rules favorably, itĀ could expand slot machines to counties where voters passed slots referendums:Ā Brevard, Duval, Gadsden, Hamilton, Lee, Palm Beach, and Washington. That could result inĀ the single biggest gambling expansion in the state.
Marc Dunbar, the track’s attorneyĀ told justicesĀ thatĀ the Legislature intended to allow for an expansion of slot machines in the state, saying counties were empowered under state law to decide whether to allow slots.
ā Norman v. State of Florida: “This case challenges the constitutionality of Florida’s statute restricting the ‘open carry’ of firearms.”
Also in June, the court heard the case ofĀ Dale Lee Norman, whichĀ could upholdĀ or overturnĀ Floridaās ban on openly carrying a firearm. The National Rifle AssociationĀ filed a friend-of-the-court brief.
Norman was arrested by Fort Pierce police in February 2012 after having gotten hisĀ concealed weapon license earlier that day, according to his initial brief.
āA concerned citizen noticed Mr. Normanās firearm on his right hip and called police,ā the briefĀ said. āThe Stateās sole allegation in this case is that Mr. Norman carried a firearm conspicuously and openly rather than concealed.ā
His attorney, gun-rights activist Eric Friday, saidĀ the ban should be stricken because it āinfringe(s) on the fundamental individual rights of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and the State.ā
The Associated Press contributed to this post, reprinted with permission.Ā