Federal Air Force Disability Ruling, Florida Condo Financing Changes, St. Pete Utility Rates & More: August 11 Legal Update
A federal court has ruled against an Air Force disability-screening system that may have kept service members out of the military disability-evaluation process. New Fannie Mae condominium standards have begun taking effect. St. Petersburg utility rates return to City Council this week. Florida faces a Friday deadline to rewrite controversial property-tax ballot language. And Todd Blanche has now been sworn in as United States Attorney General.
Published August 11, 2026
Sometimes a legal update changes dramatically overnight. Other times, the important development is simply knowing what happens next.
Our August 10 St. Petersburg Legal Update examined St. Petersburg’s expired Duke Energy franchise agreement, proposed utility-rate increases, a possible $600 million infrastructure bond, Florida HOA foreclosure law, the pending property-tax constitutional amendment, Florida’s new court-filing certification rule and veterans-benefits legislation.
Several of those stories remain active.
But there are also significant new developments—particularly for veterans and former service members, condominium owners and buyers, Florida lawyers, and people following the rapidly changing relationship between law and government.
At The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A., we believe law is most useful when people understand how it affects their actual lives. A federal court ruling can affect whether a former service member may have been deprived of a disability process. A mortgage rule can affect whether someone can sell a condominium. A City Council vote can change a monthly utility bill. And a few words appearing on a ballot can influence how millions of Floridians understand a constitutional amendment.
Here is where several of those developing stories stand as of August 11, 2026.
Legal Update at a Glance
- A federal judge has ruled that an Air Force pre-Integrated Disability Evaluation System screening process was unlawful, with the appropriate remedy still to be determined.
- Some major Fannie Mae condominium-project review changes became mandatory for loan applications dated August 3, 2026, while a separate increase in the minimum replacement-reserve allocation for certain full reviews is scheduled to take effect January 4, 2027.
- St. Petersburg City Council will take the next procedural step toward proposed FY2027 utility-rate increases on Thursday, August 13.
- Florida’s Attorney General faces an August 14 deadline, under a Leon County court order, to rewrite the title and summary of proposed Amendment 3 concerning homestead property taxes.
- Todd Blanche, whom we previously discussed while his nomination remained pending, has now been confirmed and sworn in as United States Attorney General.
- Today is the Florida Supreme Court’s deadline for comments concerning amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, although the rule itself has already been effective since June 15.
- The Justice Department has acknowledged receiving the Senate committee’s Anthony Fauci contempt referral, but we have not identified a subsequent public charging decision as of this update.
- In Pinellas County, Dr. Tomasz Kosowski has been found competent to represent himself in the upcoming first-degree murder trial involving the disappearance and alleged killing of attorney Steven Cozzi.
Federal Court Rules Against Air Force Disability Screening System
One of today’s most important developments for the veterans and military community actually occurred outside the Department of Veterans Affairs.
On August 7, the National Veterans Legal Services Program announced that a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia had granted summary judgment to plaintiffs challenging an Air Force process that screened service members before they could enter the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, or IDES.
According to NVLSP’s announcement concerning Watts v. Meink, the court concluded that the challenged Air Force process was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and an unauthorized process that the Air Force lacked authority to create. The court also concluded that the named plaintiffs had protected due-process interests and directed the parties to submit additional briefing concerning the appropriate remedy.
That last point is important.
The court has ruled on the legality of the process, but the remedy is not yet complete.
This is therefore potentially significant news for current and former Air Force members, but it would be premature to suggest that everyone potentially affected is automatically entitled to medical retirement, retroactive benefits or a records correction.
What Is IDES?
The Integrated Disability Evaluation System is part of the military disability process. It is designed to determine whether a service member with significant medical conditions remains fit for continued military service and, if not, what military disability consequences may follow.
The process can include Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board proceedings, representation, hearings, appeal rights and consideration of military disability separation or retirement.
That makes this different from an ordinary VA disability claim.
The Department of Defense military disability system asks, among other things, whether a medical condition affects a person’s fitness for military service.
The VA disability compensation system generally determines whether disabilities are connected to military service and the degree to which they qualify for VA compensation.
The systems often interact, particularly through IDES, but they are not the same thing.
We regularly discuss the separate VA system in our resources on Veterans Disability and Understanding VA Disability.
Who Should Pay Attention?
The ruling deserves particular attention from former Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members who had significant medical limitations near the end of service but never received a full military disability evaluation.
Questions may be especially worth asking where a service member:
had a medical condition that arguably failed retention standards;
was placed on extended duty limitations;
could not deploy or change station because of a medical condition;
was nevertheless returned to duty or separated without a full MEB/PEB process; or
later received substantial service-connected VA disability ratings for conditions that existed while still serving.
Those circumstances do not establish that a particular veteran is a member of the class or entitled to relief. Individual military records, dates, medical history and the eventual remedial order will matter.
The important point today is more modest:
A federal court has concluded that the Air Force could not substitute its own pre-screening process for disability-evaluation procedures required by law.
That is a significant veterans-law development, and we will continue watching the remedy phase.
New Fannie Mae Condo Rules Could Affect Florida Buyers, Sellers and Associations
Another major development has received much less public attention but could have significant practical consequences in Florida.
Fannie Mae has changed several requirements governing condominium-project reviews and property insurance. Some of those changes became mandatory for loan applications dated August 3, 2026.
The Fannie Mae Lender Letter LL-2026-03 makes several notable changes. Among them, Fannie Mae retired its Limited Review process, changed reserve-study requirements and announced an increase in the replacement-reserve allocation required for certain Full Review projects.
There is an important timing distinction.
For loan applications dated August 3, 2026 or later, established projects that formerly qualified for a Limited Review generally must instead go through a Full Review or qualify for a Waiver of Project Review. Fannie Mae also changed how lenders may rely upon reserve studies, including requiring the project’s budget to include the highest recommended reserve allocation identified by the study when that alternative is being used.
The widely discussed increase from a 10% to 15% minimum replacement-reserve allocation, however, does not become mandatory until January 4, 2027 for loan applications using the Full Review process.
That distinction matters because headlines can easily make it sound as though every condominium association became subject to a new 15% reserve requirement on August 3.
That is not what the Fannie Mae guidance says.
Why Mortgage Rules Can Become HOA and Real Estate Problems
A rule imposed by Fannie Mae is not the same thing as a Florida statute governing condominium associations.
But lending rules matter because most real estate transactions do not occur in isolation.
Imagine a condominium owner who wants to sell.
The buyer needs financing. The lender must determine whether the project satisfies applicable underwriting requirements. The association’s finances, reserves, insurance, deferred maintenance and project status can therefore become relevant to whether financing is available.
A problem that begins in an association budget can consequently become a problem at the closing table.
That can affect:
association boards, because budgets and reserves influence project eligibility;
existing owners, because assessments or reserve increases may affect monthly costs;
buyers, because financing may become more difficult;
sellers, because a project-financing problem can shrink the available pool of buyers;
and real estate professionals, because project eligibility can become an important issue before a transaction reaches closing.
Florida condominium owners are already navigating increased scrutiny involving structural integrity, insurance costs, reserve funding and association assessments. Fannie Mae expressly explained that its revised standards are intended to address the relationship between underfunded reserves, deferred maintenance and financial hardship on unit owners.
This is exactly why condominium law, real estate law, insurance and lending cannot always be considered separately.
A condominium may be someone’s home, an association-governance system, a piece of real estate, collateral for a mortgage and an investment asset—all at the same time.
We expect to examine these Fannie Mae changes more closely in a separate Florida condominium and real-estate update.
St. Petersburg Utility Rates Return to City Council Thursday
Closer to home, St. Petersburg’s proposed FY2027 utility rates reach their next formal stage this week.
The City currently identifies Thursday, August 13 at 3:00 p.m. for City Council’s first reading relating to the proposed rates. The City describes that proceeding as the step that formally sets the public hearing, which is scheduled for August 27 after 5:00 p.m. at City Hall.
The proposed increases affect sanitation, potable water, wastewater, stormwater and reclaimed water.
According to the City’s current utility-rate information, the projected increase on a typical monthly bill varies according to stormwater tier and other services. The City’s examples currently range from approximately $10.18 to $13.82 per month before considering every possible account variation.
We discussed the proposal extensively in our August 10 Legal Update.
The key point for August 11 is this:
Thursday is an important procedural date, but it is not yet the scheduled final-adoption hearing.
That is expected August 27.
Why This Matters Beyond a Monthly Water Bill
Utility pricing is also a business issue, housing issue and development issue.
A relatively small household increase may have a different effect when multiplied across dozens or hundreds of rental units, commercial properties, restaurants, hotels or other high-usage businesses.
The policy question is therefore not merely whether aging infrastructure needs investment. St. Petersburg has substantial water, wastewater and stormwater needs.
The larger questions are how quickly improvements should occur, how those improvements should be financed, which users should bear which costs, and how the City balances affordability with long-term infrastructure risk.
Those same questions overlap with the City’s proposed general-obligation bond program, which could ask voters to authorize substantial additional infrastructure borrowing in November.
Local government can sometimes feel less dramatic than national politics.
But local decisions frequently reach a person’s home or business much faster.
Florida’s Property-Tax Amendment Faces an August 14 Ballot-Language Deadline
Another story we have been following is approaching an immediate deadline.
A Leon County judge ruled that the ballot title and summary for proposed Amendment 3 did not satisfy Florida’s requirements for neutral ballot language and ordered the State to rewrite them.
The proposal itself was not removed from the November ballot.
According to reporting on the court’s order, the Attorney General was given until August 14 to produce revised language.
We discussed the ruling in our August 6 Legal Update and again in the August 10 update.
As of this publication, we have not identified a subsequent development that makes those prior explanations obsolete.
So the next date to watch is Friday.
Why Ballot Language Is a Legal Issue
It is easy to dismiss litigation over a ballot summary as fighting over words.
But the words on a ballot matter.
Most voters will not arrive at a polling place having read every page of legislative history surrounding a constitutional amendment. The title and summary may therefore become some of the most important information a voter sees before deciding whether to amend Florida’s Constitution.
Florida law consequently imposes requirements intended to ensure that voters receive a fair explanation of what a proposal would do.
The present litigation does not determine whether the underlying property-tax proposal is good or bad policy.
It concerns whether voters are being given a legally adequate description of the choice they are being asked to make.
We will review the replacement language if and when it is filed.
Todd Blanche Is Now the United States Attorney General
One part of our August 6 update is now definitively out of date.
At the time, Todd Blanche’s nomination for United States Attorney General was still pending before the full Senate.
That has changed.
The Senate confirmed Blanche by a 50-49 vote, and he was sworn in on August 10. The Associated Press reported on his swearing-in and the confirmation fight.
Blanche had already been serving as Acting Attorney General after previously serving as Deputy Attorney General. He also formerly represented President Donald Trump in criminal matters.
That history has generated substantial political controversy over the independence of the Department of Justice.
The legal point, however, is straightforward:
Blanche is no longer merely the nominee or acting officeholder. He is now the confirmed Attorney General of the United States.
That matters to several other legal stories we are following because the Attorney General ultimately leads the Department of Justice, including while the Department considers politically sensitive referrals and litigation positions.
Florida’s Court-Citation Rule: Comments Close Today, But the Rule Is Already in Effect
Florida lawyers also have a deadline today.
On May 28, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2). The amendment became effective June 15, 2026.
Under the amended rule, when a document is filed, its signer represents not only that the signer has read it, believes there are grounds supporting it and is not filing merely for delay, but also that:
“the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”
The Court expressly authorized sanctions for filings inconsistent with that representation. Potential sanctions identified in the rule include reprimand, contempt, striking a document, dismissal, costs, attorneys’ fees or other sanctions.
Today—August 11—is the deadline established by the Florida Supreme Court for interested persons to submit comments concerning the amendment.
This Is Bigger Than an “AI Rule”
The amendment was unquestionably prompted in substantial part by concerns about generative artificial intelligence producing fabricated cases or inaccurate citations.
But describing it solely as an AI rule can be misleading.
The representation concerns the filing itself, regardless of how it was created.
A lawyer who never touches an AI program still has the responsibility.
Likewise, using an AI tool does not automatically violate the rule.
The Florida Supreme Court’s accompanying statewide administrative order explained that the amendment was intended to replace varying circuit-level AI disclosure and certification requirements with a uniform statewide approach. Courts should therefore rely upon Rule 2.515 rather than creating separate local AI-disclosure regimes.
The lesson is simple and important:
Technology may assist legal research and drafting, but the person signing the filing remains responsible for verifying the authorities.
That is good practice whether a document was drafted by a lawyer, a law clerk, software, artificial intelligence or some combination of them.
Fauci Contempt Referral: DOJ Has It, But We Are Still Waiting
We have also been following the unusual constitutional dispute involving Dr. Anthony Fauci.
On August 6, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved a contempt resolution after Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during questioning concerning COVID-19 and related research issues.
The formal resolution contemplates certification of the committee report to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The Senate committee resolution is available here.
The Justice Department confirmed after the committee action that it had received the contempt referral and was reviewing it.
As of this August 11 update, we have not identified a subsequent public DOJ charging decision.
That is an important distinction.
A congressional contempt action or referral is not itself a criminal conviction.
The legal dispute remains unusually complicated because of Fauci’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the scope and consequences of the pardon issued by former President Biden, questions concerning potential exposure outside the pardon, and the procedural steps necessary for contempt enforcement.
Rather than speculate, we will continue tracking what the Department of Justice actually does.
Local Trial Watch: Kosowski Will Represent Himself in Steven Cozzi Murder Case
One local criminal case deserves particular attention as its September trial approaches.
Dr. Tomasz Roman Kosowski is charged with first-degree murder in connection with the disappearance and alleged killing of St. Petersburg-area attorney Steven Cozzi.
The public Pinellas County Clerk docket reflects a significant development from August 6: the court determined that Kosowski is competent to represent himself and granted his request to proceed pro se following a Faretta hearing.
The trial is presently scheduled to begin September 14.
Self-representation in a first-degree murder prosecution is an extraordinary decision, particularly in a case involving complex forensic evidence and potentially severe sentencing consequences.
The United States Constitution protects a competent criminal defendant’s ability, under certain circumstances, to waive counsel and represent himself. But having the legal right to proceed without an attorney is very different from determining that doing so is strategically wise.
The Cozzi case is especially significant in the Tampa Bay legal community because Cozzi was himself an attorney.
We will continue following significant hearings and docket developments as trial approaches.
St. Pete Beach Sign Litigation: No Major New Ruling Yet
We also checked the St. Pete Beach sign litigation discussed in our August 3 article, St. Pete Beach Sign Lawsuit, Duke Energy, and Election Law: Why Government Decisions Matter Close to Home.
We have not identified a new substantive ruling that changes our previous analysis as of this publication.
That is worth saying because a useful legal update should distinguish between a story that has genuinely moved and one that remains pending.
We will continue watching the federal case, particularly as the City reaches its response stage.
Duke Energy: The Franchise Expired, But Electric Service Did Not
There is likewise no reason to manufacture a new Duke Energy story simply because we discussed the franchise agreement yesterday.
The approximately 30-year franchise agreement between St. Petersburg and Duke Energy expired August 1.
That did not mean that residents suddenly lost electric service.
Instead, the expiration creates longer-term questions involving franchise fees, use of public rights-of-way, the City’s future relationship with Duke and the continuing municipal-utility feasibility analysis.
Our August 10 Legal Update provides the current detailed explanation.
Unless another substantive development occurs, we believe the better approach is to continue monitoring rather than publishing another article saying essentially the same thing.
Why We Keep Following These Stories
At first glance, an Air Force disability case, condominium mortgage standards, a St. Petersburg utility hearing, Florida ballot language and a federal contempt dispute appear to have little in common.
But each demonstrates the same underlying principle:
Law does not exist in a vacuum.
The Air Force case concerns whether government followed legally required procedures before potentially depriving service members of important disability rights.
The condominium rules demonstrate how lending standards can move through association budgets and ultimately affect homeowners, buyers and sellers.
The utility-rate proceeding shows how local government decisions reach monthly household and business expenses.
The property-tax litigation illustrates why the words government places before voters matter.
And Florida’s new court-filing rule reminds lawyers that even as technology changes, professional responsibility remains attached to the person signing the document.
That interconnectedness is one reason The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. has continued developing as a community-oriented First Counsel law firm rather than viewing every legal problem as existing within a separate box.
A legal issue can begin with a house and become an HOA dispute.
A business problem can become litigation.
A veteran’s medical history can raise questions involving both VA disability and a prior military disability process.
A City Council decision can affect a resident, landlord, business owner, developer and taxpayer differently.
Understanding where those issues intersect is often the first step toward understanding what to do next.
We Will Continue Updating These Stories
Several dates are now especially important:
August 13: St. Petersburg City Council takes the next formal step concerning proposed FY2027 utility rates.
August 14: the present deadline for revised Florida Amendment 3 ballot language.
August 19: a date we have been monitoring in connection with the response stage of the St. Pete Beach sign litigation.
August 27: St. Petersburg’s scheduled public hearing concerning proposed utility-rate adoption.
September 14: the presently scheduled beginning of the Kosowski murder trial in Pinellas County.
January 4, 2027: Fannie Mae’s increased 15% replacement-reserve allocation requirement becomes mandatory for applicable Full Review loan applications.
We will continue following these developments and updating our readers when something actually changes.
The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. is a St. Petersburg-based community law firm assisting individuals, families, veterans and businesses with matters involving veterans disability, business law, estate planning and probate, civil litigation, real estate and community disputes, personal injury and other legal needs.
For additional information, visit GetYourLegalAction.com or review our growing collection of legal and community updates.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and is based upon information publicly available as of August 11, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, court orders, administrative policies, lending requirements and case developments may change. The discussion of pending litigation describes allegations, reported developments and procedural rulings and should not be interpreted as expressing an opinion concerning the ultimate merits of any pending case.
