In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC2025-1808

IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.

November 26, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Consistent with the process set out in article V, section 9 of

the Florida Constitution, this opinion addresses the need to

increase or decrease the number of judges in fiscal year 2026-27

and certifies our “findings and recommendations concerning such

need” to the Florida Legislature. 1 We certify the need for 13

1. Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in
pertinent part:

Determination of number of judges.—The
supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for
the determination of the need for additional judges except
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or
redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits. If the
supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or
decreasing the number of judges or increasing,
additional circuit court judgeships and 12 additional county court

judgeships, as identified in the appendix. We certify there is no

additional district court judgeship need. Further, we certify there is

no need to decrease the number of circuit court or county court

judgeships. We acknowledge excess judicial capacity in the Second

District Court of Appeal, an issue which the Legislature has

addressed by enacting legislation in the 2025 legislative session to

reduce the number of statutorily authorized district court

judgeships in that court through attrition. 2

I. TRIAL COURTS

The Court continues to use a verified, objective weighted

caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need

in the trial courts. 3 In broad terms, this methodology assigns a

case weight to each case type to represent the average judicial time

decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and
recommendations concerning such need.

2. See ch. 2025-202, §§ 3, 5, Laws of Fla. (amending
§ 35.06(2), Fla. Stat. (2024), and creating § 35.06(7), Fla. Stat.
(2025); effective July 1, 2025).

3. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(A).

-2-
required for its resolution, applies those weights to forecasted

filings, and incorporates additional adjustments to project the

number of full-time-equivalent judges needed in each circuit. In

June 2024, the branch completed a judicial workload assessment to

reevaluate and update the case weights. 4

In addition to the objective data, the Court considers the

judgeship needs application annually submitted by the chief judge

of each judicial circuit. In these applications, the chief judges

explain how secondary factors affect the administration of justice in

their respective circuits. 5 The secondary factors identified by each

chief judge reflect local conditions and considerations that may

justify the Court’s decision to certify additional judgeships even

though the objective weighted caseload methodology indicates

sufficient judicial capacity or to decline to certify a reduction when

that methodology suggests excess judicial capacity.

4. See Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report
(June 2024),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/2438568/file/Judicia
l_Workload_Report_Final.pdf.

5. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(B), (c)
(setting forth other factors that may be used in the determination of
judicial need).

-3-
Using the new case weights, along with an assessment of

secondary factors, the analysis for fiscal year 2025-26 resulted in

the Court certifying the need for 48 judgeships (23 circuit and 25

county) in its December 2024 certification opinion. 6 In doing so,

the Court chose not to certify the full complement of judgeships

projected to be needed under the objective weighted caseload

methodology, opting instead for an incremental approach that

balanced overall judicial need with fiscal and operational

considerations, including the Legislature’s responsibility to address

“myriad state budget priorities with limited resources.” 7 The Court

expresses its appreciation to the Legislature for authorizing 37 trial

court judgeships (22 circuit and 15 county) during the 2025

legislative session. 8

Building on that foundation, this opinion represents the

6. In re Certif. of Need for Add’l Judges, 407 So. 3d 1222,
1226 (Fla. 2024).

7. Id.

8. See ch. 2025-202, §§ 1-2, 5, Laws of Fla. (amending
§§ 26.031, 34.022, Fla. Stat. (2024); effective July 1, 2025); ch.
2025-198, § 7, at 489, 491, Laws of Fla. (provisos accompanying
specific appropriations 2990, 2992, 3003A, 3005, 3007, and
3012A).

-4-
next incremental step in addressing trial court judicial need. The

Court is mindful of the state’s current fiscal climate and

projected budget shortfalls in subsequent fiscal years and

recognizes that establishing new judgeships results in

operational and potential fiscal impacts for justice-system

partners, such as the clerks of the circuit courts, state attorneys,

and public defenders. Taking these factors into account, the

Court certifies the need for 13 additional circuit court judgeships

and 12 additional county court judgeships for fiscal year 2026-

27, reflecting judicial need across six circuits and seven counties.

The need is most pronounced in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit

and Walton County, both of which continue to significantly

exceed the methodology’s judicial need threshold, as documented

in the 2024 judicial workload assessment and reaffirmed in the

latest assessment. Although the overall judicial need indicated

by the methodology is greater, this certification reflects a

deliberate, incremental approach guided by fiscal realities and a

continuing commitment to fully addressing judicial need over

time.

Among the secondary factors discussed in the most recent

-5-
judgeship needs applications were resource issues affecting judicial

workload and efficiency. Limitations in available court system

resources can result in additional time and effort spent by judges.

Chief judges noted, for example, that case managers can assist

judges with implementing differentiated case management

requirements, monitoring cases, and performing other ministerial

tasks, thus allowing judges to focus on substantive matters. Chief

judges report that the current complement of case managers is

working at capacity and, in some instances, is limited to serving a

single division, leaving other divisions without support. The Court

endeavors to balance the need for judges with the need for other

court system resources. The branch, for example, submitted a

legislative budget request for fiscal year 2026-27 for case manager

positions and critical case management technology, which—

together with additional judicial resources—will help support

effective case management.

The chief judges also identified broader secondary factors

contributing to judicial need. These factors include population

growth accompanied by increased filings for certain case types; a

heightened demand for court interpreters and the additional

-6-
judicial time required to accommodate interpreted proceedings; the

expansion of problem-solving courts, which require additional

judicial engagement with participants; and the growing complexity

of filings, particularly in the civil and family divisions. The chief

judges anticipate that additional judgeships will allow cases to

proceed more efficiently through the system, expand the

availability of hearing time, and increase judicial capacity to

promptly rule on motions and other matters. These improvements

are expected to shorten the time to trial, increase disposition and

clearance rates, and reduce local jail populations.

The Court also examined whether to certify a need to

decrease the number of trial court judgeships. The objective

weighted caseload methodology indicates limited areas with

potential excess judicial capacity. However, based on its review

of the workload data and secondary factors, the Court concluded

that a reduction in the number of judges was not warranted.

Secondary factors weighing against decreasing judgeships

include the growing complexity of cases, geographic

considerations such as the number and locations of branch

courthouses, having a sufficient number of judges to ensure

-7-
access to justice, and other local circumstances. In addition, the

Court recognizes that the available workload data are insufficient

to establish a consistent trend of surplus judicial capacity

because the new case weights were adopted only recently. The

Court therefore declines to certify a decrease in judgeships at this

time.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court certifies the need

for 13 additional circuit court judgeships and 12 additional

county court judgeships and finds that no reduction in judgeships

is warranted for fiscal year 2026-27. The specific certifications for

each circuit and county are set out in the appendix accompanying

this opinion. The Court will continue to monitor trial court

judicial workload and recommend needed judicial resources in

subsequent certification opinions under article V, section 9 of the

Florida Constitution.

II. DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL

In accordance with Florida Rule of General Practice and

Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(2), the Court continues to rely on a

verified, objective weighted caseload methodology—based primarily

-8-
on the number of cases decided—as the principal criterion for

evaluating judicial need in the district courts. This methodology

also considers factors related to workload, efficiency, effectiveness,

and professionalism as outlined in the rule.

Because the weighted caseload methodology did not

demonstrate a need for additional district court judgeships and no

requests were submitted by the chief judges, the Court does not

certify the need for additional judgeships in this opinion. As noted,

the Court continues to recognize surplus judicial capacity in the

Second District and is grateful to the Legislature for enacting

legislation during the 2025 legislative session to reduce the number

of statutorily authorized judgeships in that court through attrition,

without requiring any sitting judge to vacate his or her position

involuntarily.9 The Court also appreciates the Legislature’s funding

of the two district court judgeships for the Sixth District Court of

Appeal certified in last year’s opinion. 10

9. See supra note 2.

10. See ch. 2025-202, § 3, Laws of Fla. (amending § 35.06(6),
Fla. Stat. (2024); effective July 1, 2025); ch. 2025-198, § 7, at 487,
Laws of Fla. (proviso accompanying specific appropriations 2977,
2979, and 2986A).

-9-
III. CONCLUSION

Having conducted both a quantitative and qualitative

assessment of trial court judicial workload, we certify the need for

25 additional trial court judges, consisting of 13 in circuit court and

12 in county court, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. We

also recommend no decrease in circuit court or county court

judgeships. Finally, we certify the need for no additional judgeships

in the district courts.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges

- 10 -
APPENDIX
Trial Court Need

Number of Number of
Circuit Circuit Court County County Court
Judges Certified Judges Certified
1 1 Walton 1
2 0 N/A 0
3 0 N/A 0
4 0 Duval 3
5 1 N/A 0
6 0 N/A 0
7 1 N/A 0
8 0 N/A 0
9 0 Orange 2
10 0 Highlands 1
11 0 Miami-Dade 3
12 0 N/A 0
13 0 Hillsborough 1
14 0 N/A 0
15 0 N/A 0
16 0 N/A 0
17 0 N/A 0
18 1 N/A 0
19 1 N/A 0
20 8 Lee 1
Circuit County
13 12
Total Total

- 11 -