Florida’s SB 180 Sparks Statewide Legal Clash Over Local Control
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A new Florida law, SB 180, is at the center of a growing lawsuit filed by more than two dozen local governments, sparking a major confrontation over the balance of power between the state and municipalities and counties. The dispute centers on whether the legislation unlawfully strips away local “home-rule” authority overgrowth, zoning, and land-use decisions.
What SB 180 Does — and What Triggered the Lawsuit
SB 180, signed into law on June 26, 2025, was originally introduced as part of a broader package intended to streamline disaster recovery procedures after last year’s hurricane season — including debris removal, rebuilding permits, and inspection fees.
In a late amendment added May 2, 2025, weeks before final approval. The law included sweeping new restrictions: any county or city in Florida that was under a federal disaster declaration must not adopt or enforce any land-use, zoning, or comprehensive-plan regulations that are “more restrictive or burdensome” than what was in effect as of August 1, 2024. The freeze lasts until October 1, 2027.
Under that prohibition, local governments are barred even from issuing moratoria on construction or redevelopment, including for properties damaged by storms, a tool many municipalities use for safety or environmental protection after major weather events.
Further, the law empowers private residents or businesses to sue local governments for declaratory or injunctive relief if they believe a regulation violates SB 180 — with the possibility of recovering attorney fees and legal costs.
Critics argue the language of the law is broad, gives developers leverage, and effectively freezes local planning ability. Supporters argue the law speeds up rebuilding and removes red tape in emergency contexts.
“SB 180 could have easily accomplished its original purpose without imposing these sweeping restrictions on local governments,” said Charlene Joyce, candidate for Florida House District 54. “If lawmakers had simply removed the problematic provisions, we could have delivered real relief to homeowners who urgently need to rebuild without tying the hands of cities and counties. Instead, the bill was written such vast extent that it hinders responsible planning and makes it harder to manage new development in fast-growing communities. Section 28, in particular, was drafted so poorly that it gives broad authority to development projects that were previously prohibited — and it does so retroactively. That’s not responsible policy, and it’s not what Floridians expect from their Legislature.”
Municipal Pushback — 25 Governments Sue
On September 29–30, 2025, a coalition of 25 Florida municipalities and counties filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court challenging SB 180’s land-use restrictions. The lawsuit describes SB 180 as “the largest incursion into local home-rule authority” since Florida’s 1968 constitution was adopted. Named plaintiffs include, Orange County, Manatee County, Florida among other counties and municipalities.
Legal representatives argued that SB 180 not only conflicts with Florida’s existing planning framework, the Florida Community Planning Act, but also violates constitutional protections for home-rule and exceeds the limits of a single-subject law. Lead attorney Jamie Cole, from law firm Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman (WSHC+B), said in a statement that “every city and county has unique needs, and local leaders are best positioned to make decisions about growth, safety and resilience.”
Consequences Already Felt — Planning Delays, Nullified Codes, Growing Uncertainty
Even before the lawsuit, SB 180’s language caused immediate disruption. In Orange County, officials said the law effectively invalidated their long-term growth plan known as “Vision 2050” — a plan developed over years with public input, aimed at managing future growth, protecting natural habitats, expanding affordable housing, and promoting walkability.
Similarly, Apopka, Florida’s newly revised comprehensive growth plan was rejected by the state under SB 180; in a public statement, Apopka’s mayor, Bryan Nelson, said the city was “in a holding pattern,” awaiting clarity on what counts as “restrictive or burdensome.” He noted the uncertainty threatens large-scale projects such as a planned 255-acre development near SR-429.
Municipalities say many of their staff time and public resources invested in zoning updates, environmental protections, and community planning have already been nullified — producing waste and frustration.
Environmental and resilience advocates warn the freeze on local land-use regulation undermines the ability to adapt to increasing threats from hurricanes, flooding, sea-level rise, and storm-water risk.
One Deltona city commissioner, Dori Howington, described the problem plainly: regulations meant to increase resilience — such as stricter building-codes, flood control, or zoning for safer development — could no longer be adopted under SB 180.
Supporters of SB 180: A Response to Disaster and Overregulation
Backers of the law argue that SB 180 was necessary to assist storm-hit Floridians and speed recovery after back-to-back hurricanes. Supporters claim it reduces red tape and prevents local governments from using disaster declarations as pretext for long-term land-use restrictions that can penalize property owners attempting to rebuild.
Some supporters say the law protects property rights and ensures that rebuilding is not hindered by new zoning obstacles — especially in communities where delays could create dangerous conditions.
Why the Lawsuit Matters — and What’s at Stake
The conflict over SB 180 isn’t just a legal battle — it raises fundamental questions about the nature of governance, local autonomy, environmental protection, and community voice in Florida.
- Home-rule and local democracy: Plaintiffs argue SB 180 overrides the authority of local governments — those closest to their communities and residents — to make decisions about land use, growth, infrastructure, and environmental protection.
- Climate resilience & public safety: With rising sea levels, more frequent hurricanes, and greater flooding risk, many municipalities believe local control over zoning, building codes, and flood-mitigation planning is essential for public safety and long-term sustainability.
- Economic and development interests: On the flip side, developers and property owners argue that restrictions can inhibit rebuilding and hinder affordable housing or redevelopment, especially after disasters. SB 180’s supporters say the law restores balance and removes burdensome red tape.
- Legal precedent: A court ruling against SB 180 would reaffirm local control and set limits on state power; a ruling for the state could embolden further preemption of municipal authority in Florida.
What’s Next — Court, Politics, and Public Pressure
The case is now pending in Leon County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs are asking for a declaratory judgment that SB 180 is unconstitutional and for an injunction barring its enforcement.
Meanwhile, some local governments not yet part of the lawsuit have voiced concern, requested legislative revisions, or paused planning efforts.
Advocacy groups and environmental organizations continue to build public awareness, arguing SB 180 undermines community resilience and long-term planning.
Whether the courts uphold SB 180 or strike it down, the outcome will likely shape Florida’s local governance, growth management policies, and environmental protections for years to come.
Media Contact:
The People’s Olive Branch
702-302-6225
info@peoplesolivebranch.com
https://peoplesolivebranch.com
Sources: https://www.flsenate.gov/
Support The People’s Olive Branch’s mission of transparency and truth through our merchandise.
