Published July 29, 2026
Several consequential legal and governmental developments are occurring at the same time. St. Petersburg voters are being asked to consider substantial infrastructure borrowing. The City’s longstanding franchise agreement with Duke Energy is approaching expiration while the City studies whether municipal ownership might be feasible. The Historic Gas Plant District is moving from proposal selection toward negotiations and enforceable agreements.
At the state level, Florida’s proposed property-tax amendment faces a challenge to its ballot language. Litigation over Florida’s new congressional map has produced important—but largely procedural—rulings. The Florida Supreme Court has also adopted a new statewide citation-verification requirement and issued a significant decision governing joint proposals for settlement.
Nationally, the United States Supreme Court has issued decisions concerning mail ballots, candidate standing, and birthright citizenship. A separate challenge involving a presidential executive order regulating aspects of federal election administration reached the Supreme Court on an emergency application filed July 27, 2026.
These matters involve different areas of law and different stages of the legal process. Some are final decisions. Others are pending challenges, proposed constitutional amendments, municipal studies, or negotiations that have not yet produced final legal obligations.
This update is intended to explain what has happened, what has not yet been decided, and why these developments may matter to St. Petersburg residents, Florida businesses, property owners, litigants, voters, and veterans.
At a Glance
- St. Petersburg voters are expected to decide in November whether to authorize up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for stormwater, wastewater, drinking-water, and flood-resilience improvements.
- The City’s current Duke Energy franchise agreement expires August 1, 2026, but that expiration does not mean electric service will stop.
- The Historic Gas Plant redevelopment is entering negotiation, term-sheet, community-benefits, and City Council approval stages.
- Recent Second District Court of Appeal decisions address commercial rent deposits, delayed property-insurance claims, HOA lien foreclosures, and appellate finality.
- A lawsuit challenges whether Florida’s proposed property-tax amendment is described fairly and accurately on the ballot.
- Florida’s new congressional map remains operative for the 2026 election, but the Florida Supreme Court’s emergency ruling did not decide the map’s constitutional merits.
- Florida lawyers and self-represented litigants now represent through their signatures that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited.
- The Florida Supreme Court has held that a joint proposal for settlement generally must apportion the amount and terms among the parties, even when the parties present a unified claim.
- The United States Supreme Court has distinguished between candidate standing to challenge election rules and the ultimate legality of post-Election Day ballot-receipt deadlines.
- A separate executive-order dispute concerning federal citizenship lists and mail-ballot administration is now before the Supreme Court on an emergency application.
- The Supreme Court has issued a major decision concerning the Citizenship Clause and children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.
- A recent veterans appellate decision reinforces the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ obligation to address potentially favorable evidence.
Table of Contents
- St. Petersburg’s Proposed $600 Million Infrastructure Bond
- What the Duke Energy Franchise Expiration Means
- Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Moves Into the Agreement Stage
- Recent Second District Decisions Affecting Tampa Bay
- The Challenge to Florida’s Property-Tax Amendment
- Florida’s Congressional Redistricting Litigation
- Florida’s New Citation-Verification Rule
- Joint Proposals for Settlement After Trace Elements
- Mail Ballots After Watson and Bost
- The Pending Executive-Order Election Challenge
- Birthright Citizenship and Trump v. Barbara
- Veterans Appellate Update: Stinson
- Practical Takeaways
St. Petersburg’s Proposed $600 Million Infrastructure Bond
Status: Proposed referendum awaiting voter approval
On July 23, 2026, the St. Petersburg City Council approved ballot language asking City voters whether St. Petersburg should be authorized to issue up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for storm-resilience improvements. The question is expected to appear on the November 3, 2026, general-election ballot.
The proposed financing could be used for stormwater pump stations, drainage and floodwater-protection systems, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, and drinking-water distribution and supply improvements. The ballot language authorizes one or more bond series, with each series potentially maturing over a period of up to 30 years.
Unlike a revenue bond paid primarily from a designated revenue source, the proposed general-obligation bonds would pledge the City’s full faith, credit, and ad valorem taxing authority. In practical terms, the debt would be repaid through property taxes rather than solely through water, sewer, or stormwater utility charges.
The City estimates an impact of approximately 0.96 mills, or about $96 per year for every $100,000 of taxable value. Taxable value is not necessarily the same as a property’s market value because exemptions and assessment limitations may reduce the amount subject to taxation. The City states that, without the bond, eligible projects would continue through existing utility-fee and pay-as-you-go sources, but over a longer period. The City’s official bond page includes the proposed ballot language, project descriptions, and cost estimates.
What the bond proposal does not yet do
Approval of ballot language is not the same as approval of the bonds. The City cannot rely on the referendum authorization unless voters approve the measure. Even if voters approve it, individual projects, financing schedules, annual budgets, bond documents, and implementation decisions would still follow.
The ballot question also does not guarantee that every project currently discussed will be constructed exactly as presently described. The City characterizes its project maps as illustrative and subject to refinement based on feasibility and prioritization.
Questions voters may reasonably ask
The legal question presented to voters is whether to authorize the borrowing. The broader policy judgment requires consideration of additional issues:
- Which projects would receive priority?
- What portion of the borrowing would protect existing infrastructure, and what portion would add capacity for future growth?
- What controls would prevent funds from being redirected to unrelated purposes?
- How would the City address cost overruns and construction delays?
- Would accelerated borrowing reduce anticipated utility-rate increases?
- How would the property-tax burden compare with continued utility-fee financing?
- What reporting, auditing, and citizen-oversight mechanisms would accompany the program?
The City states that projects would be incorporated into the formal Capital Improvement Program and remain subject to City Council oversight, annual budget review, and public reporting. It also anticipates dashboards, annual meetings, and a citizen advisory group. Those proposed accountability measures should be evaluated alongside the borrowing authorization itself.
Why renters and businesses should also pay attention
Property owners would receive the direct tax bill, but renters and businesses may also experience indirect consequences. Landlords may consider increased taxes when setting future rents, subject to their leases and market conditions. Commercial tenants may bear property-tax increases through additional-rent, tax-escalation, or triple-net lease provisions.
At the same time, improved drainage, wastewater reliability, flood protection, and drinking-water infrastructure may benefit tenants, businesses, neighborhoods, insurers, and property values. This is therefore not exclusively a homeowner issue. It is also a real-estate, business-continuity, construction, public-finance, and community-resilience issue.
What the Duke Energy Franchise Expiration Means
Status: Franchise expiration and feasibility study; no final municipalization decision
Duke Energy states that its St. Petersburg franchise agreement expires on August 1, 2026. The agreement helps govern Duke’s use of City rights-of-way for poles, wires, and other distribution infrastructure and provides for the collection of franchise fees that are passed to the City.
Duke reports that it serves approximately 161,000 customers in St. Petersburg and collects approximately $23.5 million in annual franchise fees for transfer to the City. Those figures and Duke’s arguments favoring renewal appear on the company’s St. Petersburg franchise information page. Because Duke has an institutional interest in renewal, its descriptions should be considered together with the City’s eventual feasibility findings and other independent analysis.
Electric service does not stop when the franchise expires
The expiration of the franchise agreement should not be confused with termination of electric service. Duke remains a regulated utility, and the company’s authority and obligation to serve customers do not disappear merely because the City franchise reaches its stated expiration date.
Reporting on the City’s process indicates that the existing arrangement will continue while the parties negotiate or the City determines whether to pursue another path. Residents and businesses should therefore not expect their electricity to be disconnected because the calendar reaches August 1.
What the City has actually decided
On June 4, the City Council voted 4–3 to approve a contract of up to $590,000 with NewGen Strategies and Solutions for a municipal-utility feasibility study. The study is expected to examine projected acquisition costs, customer rates, financing, operational requirements, reliability, legal obstacles, and potential savings.
Approving a study is not the same as voting to create a municipal electric utility. The study is intended to generate information that City officials and residents can use before deciding whether municipalization is financially and operationally realistic.
The legal and financial questions are substantial
Creating a municipal utility would likely require much more than adopting a local ordinance. The City would need to determine which Duke-owned assets must be acquired, how those assets should be valued, how separation and reintegration costs would be allocated, how an acquisition would be financed, and whether agreement could be reached voluntarily.
If Duke does not agree to sell necessary infrastructure, condemnation or eminent-domain proceedings may become relevant. Disputes could arise over valuation, stranded costs, system separation, easements, facilities serving areas outside City boundaries, and the time required to create an independent operating system.
The City would also need to evaluate:
- Storm preparation and mutual-aid capacity;
- Generation and wholesale-power arrangements;
- Staffing and pension obligations;
- Billing and customer-service systems;
- Regulatory and environmental compliance;
- Grid maintenance and capital investment;
- Bond financing and credit-rating consequences;
- The future of franchise-fee and utility-tax revenue; and
- Transition risks for residents and commercial customers.
The appropriate approach is factual rather than ideological
Supporters of municipal ownership argue that a publicly owned utility could remove shareholder-profit incentives, improve local accountability, and potentially reduce rates. Duke argues that renewal preserves the benefits of an established utility with large-scale storm, maintenance, and operational capabilities.
Neither conclusion should be accepted without examining the underlying assumptions. The most important document may ultimately be the feasibility study—not a campaign slogan, advocacy petition, company advertisement, or political statement.
For businesses considering major investments in St. Petersburg, predictability may be nearly as important as the ultimate ownership structure. Rates, reliability, transition timelines, franchise fees, taxes, and potential litigation can all affect development and operating decisions.
Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Moves Into the Agreement Stage
Status: Development team selected; agreements not final
The City has selected the Pinellas County Housing Authority for an affordable senior-housing component and The Burg Bid team, led by Thompson Whitney Blake, for the larger portion of the Historic Gas Plant District site.
The Burg Bid proposal includes more than 3,600 affordable and workforce-housing units, public infrastructure, park and cultural components, workforce training, and small-business programming. Those figures describe the selected proposal; they are not yet independently enforceable legal requirements.
The next stage is where legal drafting becomes especially important. According to the City, the process will include negotiations, development of a term sheet, review through the Community Benefits Agreement Program, opportunities for public input, and presentation of final agreements to the City Council. No ground can be broken under the selected proposal until the required agreements receive final City Council approval. The City’s official announcement describes the selection and anticipated process.
Our firm has already published a more detailed discussion of what happens after selection of The Burg Bid. Rather than repeating that entire analysis here, the principal point bears emphasis:
Public announcements describe intentions. Final agreements determine legal obligations.
The most consequential provisions may address:
- Definitions of affordable and workforce housing;
- Duration of affordability restrictions;
- Development and construction deadlines;
- Performance milestones;
- Public-infrastructure obligations;
- Small-business and workforce commitments;
- Reporting and audit rights;
- Events of default;
- Extensions and force-majeure provisions;
- Remedies for nonperformance;
- Land-reversion or repurchase rights; and
- Whether community-benefit commitments are enforceable or primarily aspirational.
Residents do not need to oppose redevelopment to ask whether commitments are measurable and enforceable. Likewise, developers require enough clarity and flexibility to finance, construct, and operate a project of this scale. The final agreements will need to balance accountability with commercial feasibility.
Recent Second District Decisions Affecting Tampa Bay
Status: Published appellate decisions
The Second District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from Pinellas County and other parts of Southwest and West Central Florida, recently issued several decisions with direct practical importance.
Commercial tenants must strictly comply with rent-deposit orders
In FLN Properties, LLC v. First Stop Food Mart, Inc., the Second District considered a commercial property in South St. Petersburg. The trial court had ordered the tenant to deposit monthly rent into the court registry on the first day of each month. When a payment was not timely deposited, the landlord sought default and possession.
The appellate court held that section 83.232(5), Florida Statutes, required strict compliance with the unmodified rent-deposit order. The tenant’s failure constituted an absolute waiver of defenses to possession, and the landlord was entitled to a writ of possession without further hearing. The court acknowledged that the result was harsh but concluded that the trial court lacked discretion to create an equitable exception. Read the decision in FLN Properties.
The practical lesson applies to both sides of a commercial lease dispute. A landlord should ensure that the rent-deposit order is clear and should monitor compliance precisely. A tenant should not assume that a lease grace period, weekend, later tender, or equitable explanation will excuse noncompliance with a court order. If modification is needed, it should be requested before the payment deadline.
Policy language may control who bears the burden of proving prejudice
In SFR Services, LLC v. American Coastal Insurance Company, an association’s Hurricane Irma claim was reported approximately 1,053 days after the loss. The Second District agreed that the notice was not prompt. The dispute then turned to whether the insurer was entitled to a presumption that the delay caused prejudice.
The policy stated that the insurer had no coverage obligation when noncompliance with specified duties was prejudicial to the insurer. The Second District held that this language placed the burden on the insurer to prove actual prejudice rather than giving it the benefit of a presumption. The court certified conflict with contrary Third District authority. Read the decision in SFR Services.
This is not a general rule that delayed insurance claims are safe. The court found the notice untimely. The decision instead illustrates why the precise policy language matters when deciding who must prove prejudice and whether summary judgment is appropriate.
Property owners, associations, contractors, and assignees should still provide notice promptly and preserve evidence. An appellate decision allocating the burden of proof does not restore physical evidence, prevent deterioration, or eliminate other coverage defenses.
HOA lien foreclosure and appellate finality
In Guerin v. Countryside Imperial Ridge Homeowners Association, the Second District affirmed the portion of a Pinellas County judgment allowing an HOA to foreclose a recorded claim of lien for unpaid maintenance assessments, late fees, and interest.
The court dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning attorney’s fees and costs because the lower court had determined entitlement but had not yet fixed the amount. An order deciding fee entitlement while reserving the amount is generally nonfinal and not yet appealable. Read the decision in Guerin.
The decision offers two separate reminders. Properly perfected assessment liens can support foreclosure, but associations must comply with applicable declarations, statutes, notices, accounting requirements, and pre-suit procedures. Separately, parties should analyze appellate jurisdiction carefully rather than assuming that every issue mentioned in a final judgment is immediately reviewable.
These decisions fit within the broader subjects addressed by our firm’s Florida civil-litigation resources and work involving commercial property, contracts, associations, and real-estate disputes.
The Challenge to Florida’s Property-Tax Amendment
Status: Proposed constitutional amendment; ballot-language challenge pending
Florida voters are expected to consider a sweeping property-tax amendment during the November 2026 general election. The proposal addresses non-school homestead exemptions, assessment limitations for certain nonhomestead property, restrictions on the use of remaining local property-tax revenue, and a contemplated path toward broader elimination of non-school homestead property taxes.
According to the Florida Senate’s official summary, the proposal would reduce the annual assessment-growth cap for nonhomestead residential and nonresidential property from 10% to 5%. For qualifying permanent residents who establish homestead by December 31, 2026, the proposal would provide a non-school exemption of up to $150,000 beginning in 2027 and up to $250,000 beginning in 2028, followed by inflation adjustments. Different phase-in provisions would apply to people establishing permanent residence and homestead on or after January 1, 2027.
The measure requires approval from at least 60% of participating voters and, if approved, would take effect January 1, 2027. The Florida Senate has published a detailed legislative summary.
What the lawsuit challenges
The pending lawsuit does not initially ask the court to decide whether property-tax reductions are wise public policy. It challenges whether the title and summary that voters will see are legally sufficient, accurate, and nonmisleading.
The official summary states, among other things, that the amendment benefits taxpayers by exempting homestead property from taxation, exempting the first $250,000 from non-school levies, requiring a schedule for full elimination, and ensuring funding for core services by restricting the use of remaining property-tax revenue. The Department of State’s initiative page contains the official language.
The challengers contend that portions of the language are promotional or misleading, including the representation that the proposal would “ensure” funding for core services. The State and the amendment’s supporters dispute that characterization and defend the language.
A Leon County circuit judge scheduled a hearing for July 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. Because this article is being published on July 29, the procedural status may change promptly and should be updated after the court acts.
The three questions should be kept separate
Public discussion frequently combines three different issues:
First, the legal question: Does the ballot title and summary fairly inform voters of the amendment’s chief purpose and material effects?
Second, the policy question: Should Florida substantially reduce or phase out non-school homestead property taxes?
Third, the fiscal question: How would counties, municipalities, special districts, property owners, renters, and businesses respond to reduced local ad valorem revenue?
A court reviewing ballot language is not necessarily deciding the ultimate policy question. Its immediate responsibility is to determine whether voters will receive a legally adequate description before entering the voting booth.
Why St. Petersburg residents should watch both tax measures
St. Petersburg voters may encounter both the statewide property-tax amendment and the City’s proposed $600 million general-obligation bond. The two measures are legally distinct, but their financial effects may intersect.
The City bond would rely on ad valorem taxation. The statewide amendment could reduce or restructure portions of the property-tax base and local-government revenue. Voters should therefore evaluate each proposal on its own terms while also considering their combined effect on municipal finances, services, utility fees, assessments, borrowing, and future budgets.
Florida’s Congressional Redistricting Litigation
Status: New map operative for 2026; emergency and preliminary relief unsuccessful; constitutional merits not finally resolved by those rulings
Florida adopted a new congressional map for the 2026 election. Several groups and voters filed lawsuits alleging that the map violates the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts provisions, including restrictions against drawing districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party and requirements concerning compactness and political or geographic boundaries.
The State, legislative parties, and other defenders of the map dispute those allegations and have raised their own legal and procedural arguments.
What the Florida Supreme Court decided
After the trial court declined to enter a temporary injunction and proceedings moved to the First District Court of Appeal, challengers asked the Florida Supreme Court to intervene through its all-writs authority.
On June 10, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court denied that request. The Court explained that the all-writs doctrine is not an independent basis for jurisdiction and that it did not then have jurisdiction over the First District’s ongoing consideration of the appeal. The Florida Supreme Court’s order is available here.
That was a procedural jurisdictional ruling. It was not a final holding that the map complies with every provision of the Florida Constitution.
What happened to the preliminary-injunction appeals
The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the related appeals from the orders denying preliminary relief. The Equal Ground appellants filed their notice of voluntary dismissal on June 24, and related appellate dockets reflect voluntary dismissals by other plaintiffs during the same period.
The practical result is that the new map remains operative for the 2026 congressional election. Candidates, election officials, and voters are proceeding under those district boundaries.
What has not necessarily been decided
A party’s failure to obtain a temporary injunction does not automatically establish that the challenged law is constitutional. Preliminary relief generally requires consideration of several issues beyond the underlying merits, including timing, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and election-administration disruption.
Likewise, a voluntary dismissal of an interlocutory appeal does not necessarily produce a final merits judgment in the underlying trial-court case.
The accurate description is therefore:
Florida’s new congressional map is in effect for the 2026 election, and efforts to block its immediate use were unsuccessful or withdrawn. The Florida Supreme Court’s June order rested on jurisdiction and did not finally adjudicate the constitutional merits of the map.
That distinction matters because election litigation often produces emergency procedural rulings that are described publicly as broader constitutional decisions than they actually are.
Florida’s New Citation-Verification Rule
Status: Statewide rule effective June 15, 2026; post-adoption comment period remains open
The Florida Supreme Court has amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515. Under the amended rule, a person signing a filing represents that:
- The signer has read the document;
- There are good grounds supporting it;
- It is not filed for delay; and
- The legal authorities identified in the filing exist and are accurately cited.
The rule became effective at 12:01 a.m. on June 15, 2026. Comments may be filed with the Florida Supreme Court through August 11, 2026. The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion and rule text are available here.
The signature itself provides the representation
The rule does not require attorneys to insert a new paragraph certifying the absence or use of artificial intelligence in every filing. Instead, the signer’s act of filing the document supplies the representation required by Rule 2.515.
The Court explained that the amendment was adopted principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varying circuit-court administrative orders that had imposed different AI-disclosure and certification requirements.
The obligation is broader than checking whether a case name exists
A responsible verification process should confirm that:
- The cited case, statute, rule, or regulation exists;
- The citation identifies the correct authority;
- Any quoted language appears in the source;
- The authority supports the proposition for which it is cited;
- The procedural posture has not been misstated;
- The decision remains valid and has not been withdrawn, reversed, or superseded; and
- Any record citation accurately identifies the underlying material.
The rule applies whether a filing was prepared with traditional research tools, artificial intelligence, a law clerk, contract counsel, or another attorney. Technology may assist research and drafting, but signing counsel remains responsible for what is filed.
Potential sanctions
After notice and an opportunity to be heard, a court may impose sanctions for a filing inconsistent with the signer’s representation. The amended rule identifies potential sanctions including reprimand, contempt, striking the filing, dismissal, costs, attorney’s fees, or other appropriate measures.
The practical lesson for clients is not that lawyers should avoid modern research technology. It is that a lawyer should use appropriate tools while independently verifying the authorities presented in the client’s name.
Joint Proposals for Settlement After Trace Elements
Status: Florida Supreme Court decision issued July 2, 2026
Florida’s proposal-for-settlement procedure can create significant attorney-fee consequences. Under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, a qualifying party may potentially recover fees and costs when an opposing party rejects a proposal and the ultimate judgment satisfies the statutory threshold.
Because the procedure can shift attorney’s fees, Florida courts require close compliance with its governing requirements.
In Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen, the Florida Supreme Court considered a joint proposal made by married homeowners pursuing a unified claim. The proposal did not allocate separate amounts to each homeowner.
Rule 1.442(c)(3) provides that a joint proposal must state the amount and terms attributable to each party. The Fourth District had concluded that apportionment was unnecessary because the proposal concerned a unified, single claim. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court held that the rule requires apportionment of a joint proposal even when the parties present a unified, single claim. It quashed the Fourth District’s decision and approved the Second District’s contrary approach. Read the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Trace Elements.
Why the decision matters
A proposal for settlement is not merely an ordinary demand letter. An ordinary settlement communication may invite negotiation without creating statutory fee exposure. A proposal under section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 is a formal procedural device with specific timing, content, service, and judgment-comparison requirements.
After Trace Elements, lawyers and parties should be particularly cautious when a proposal:
- Is made by multiple plaintiffs;
- Is made to multiple defendants;
- Involves spouses, owners, affiliated entities, or related companies;
- Concerns unified or undifferentiated damages;
- Involves derivative or overlapping liability; or
- Uses a template developed before the new decision.
The Court emphasized that the relationships among the parties, theories of liability, and nature of the claims do not eliminate the apportionment rule merely because the claim is unified.
Existing proposals should be reviewed
Litigants should not assume that a joint proposal is enforceable merely because all recipients understand the overall amount. A technical defect may prevent later recovery of attorney’s fees, even when the offeree was not subjectively confused.
Businesses, property owners, insurers, and individuals involved in serious Florida litigation should obtain legal advice before serving, accepting, or rejecting a proposal for settlement. More general information about the litigation process is available in our overview of civil litigation in Florida.
Readers interested in other recent statutory changes may also review our broader article discussing new Florida laws effective July 1, 2026.
Mail Ballots After Watson and Bost
Status: United States Supreme Court decisions addressing different questions
Two recent United States Supreme Court decisions involving mail ballots illustrate the importance of distinguishing standing from the merits.
Bost addressed who may sue
In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Congressman Michael Bost and other candidates challenged an Illinois law permitting election officials to count qualifying mail ballots received after Election Day if they were timely postmarked.
The lower courts concluded that the candidates lacked standing. On January 14, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a candidate for office has standing to challenge rules governing the counting of votes in that candidate’s election. Read the Supreme Court’s decision in Bost.
The decision opened the courthouse door. It did not itself decide whether Illinois’s post-Election Day receipt rule violated federal law.
Watson addressed the merits of a receipt deadline
In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court considered Mississippi’s rule allowing certain absentee ballots to be counted when postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days afterward.
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the federal statutes establishing Election Day do not prohibit Mississippi from counting those ballots. The Court reasoned that federal law determines when ballots must be cast, while state law may govern when timely cast ballots must be received. Read the Supreme Court’s decision in Watson.
What Watson does and does not establish
The Court did not require every state to accept ballots after Election Day. States may continue to establish different lawful receipt deadlines.
The holding instead means that the federal Election Day statutes, by themselves, do not impose a universal Election Day receipt deadline on ballots that were lawfully cast by the applicable state deadline.
The distinction is important:
- Bost addressed whether a candidate could bring the challenge.
- Watson addressed whether federal Election Day statutes preempted a particular state receipt rule.
- Neither decision eliminates the authority of states to adopt reasonable ballot deadlines consistent with other federal and constitutional requirements.
The Pending Executive-Order Election Challenge
Status: Emergency stay application pending before the United States Supreme Court as of July 28, 2026
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” Among other provisions, the order directs federal agencies to develop and transmit state citizenship lists, initiates Postal Service rulemaking concerning mail-ballot procedures and tracking, and authorizes enforcement measures that may include withholding federal funds where legally permitted. The complete executive order is available through the White House.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia challenged portions of the order. They contend that the challenged provisions exceed presidential and agency authority and intrude upon election-administration responsibilities assigned to states and Congress.
The administration disputes those arguments. It maintains, among other things, that the states’ claims are premature, that they lack standing to challenge actions that have not yet produced concrete injury, and that the order directs agencies to act only to the extent permitted by applicable law.
What the lower courts did
A federal district court entered judgment for the plaintiff states on certain claims and enjoined implementation of specified provisions for federal elections occurring on or before November 3, 2026, within the plaintiff states.
On July 25, the First Circuit denied motions to stay the injunction pending appeal. The appellate court’s order explains that the stay motions focused on standing and ripeness. Read the First Circuit’s July 25 order.
What is now before the Supreme Court
On July 27, the administration filed an emergency application in Trump v. California, No. 26A124, asking the United States Supreme Court to stay the district court’s injunction while the appeal proceeds. It also requested an immediate administrative stay. The application and appendix are available through the Supreme Court.
As of the publication of this article on July 29, the Supreme Court has not issued a final merits decision in the dispute.
Why procedural posture matters
An emergency stay application asks whether the lower-court injunction should remain effective while litigation continues. It does not necessarily present the same record or deliberative process that accompanies a final decision after full briefing and argument.
The Court may consider:
- Whether the applicants are likely to succeed;
- Whether they face irreparable harm without a stay;
- The effect on the plaintiff states;
- The public interest;
- Standing and ripeness;
- The disruption caused by changing election procedures close to an election; and
- The division of authority among the President, Congress, federal agencies, and state election officials.
Any order should be read carefully to determine whether it resolves the merits, addresses only interim relief, or rests on jurisdictional grounds.
Birthright Citizenship and Trump v. Barbara
Status: United States Supreme Court merits decision issued June 30, 2026
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.
An executive order sought to deny recognition of citizenship to certain children born in the United States when their parents were unlawfully or temporarily present. Parents and children challenged the order under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In Trump v. Barbara, the United States Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause. Read the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision.
The constitutional issue
The dispute centered on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration argued that the phrase excluded additional categories of children based on their parents’ immigration or temporary status.
The Court rejected that interpretation. It considered the historical meaning of the Citizenship Clause, common-law principles, prior precedent, and the narrow categories traditionally understood as outside complete United States jurisdiction.
The decision’s broader significance
Although the case arose in the immigration context, it also concerns the separation of powers. A president may enforce existing law and exercise authority granted by the Constitution and Congress. An executive order cannot alter the meaning of constitutional text merely because an administration favors a different policy.
The ruling does not prevent Congress or the Executive Branch from enforcing immigration laws against parents who lack lawful status. It addresses the separate constitutional status of a child born within the United States.
This distinction is important in public discussion. Immigration enforcement, parental status, and the child’s citizenship are related politically, but they are distinct legal questions.
Veterans Appellate Update: Stinson
Status: En banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued July 16, 2026
Veterans cases often turn not only on what evidence exists, but on whether the Board of Veterans’ Appeals meaningfully addresses material favorable evidence.
In Stinson v. Collins, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims considered an application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act following earlier appellate proceedings and a Federal Circuit remand. The July 16 decision is principally an EAJA decision concerning prevailing-party status and whether the government’s position was substantially justified.
The underlying error, however, provides a significant reminder for veterans and advocates. The veteran’s service-treatment records contained potentially favorable evidence of symptoms during service, and the Board did not discuss that evidence. The Court concluded that the Board was legally required to address potentially favorable evidence and that the Secretary’s administrative position was not justified. Read the en banc decision in Stinson.
What Stinson reinforces
The Board is not required to discuss every document in the record in equal detail. It must, however, provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases that addresses material evidence potentially favorable to the claimant.
A strong appeal review should therefore ask:
- Did the Board overlook favorable service-treatment records?
- Did it fail to address competent lay testimony?
- Did it rely on an examination that ignored important evidence?
- Did it reject evidence without explaining why?
- Did it substitute its own medical judgment?
- Did it decide a factual issue that required further development?
- Did it meaningfully address theories reasonably raised by the record?
What veterans should understand
A Board decision may summarize substantial evidence and still be legally inadequate if it ignores the evidence that could materially support the claim. Veterans should not assume that unfavorable language or a lengthy decision necessarily means every relevant issue was properly considered.
Our firm provides additional information concerning the VA disability claim process and understanding VA disability benefits. Deadlines apply to appeals and review options, so a veteran who believes that favorable evidence was overlooked should avoid delaying review of the decision.
Practical Takeaways
The developments discussed above do not all require immediate legal action. They do, however, demonstrate several recurring principles.
Proposals are not final law
The St. Petersburg bond requires voter approval. Historic Gas Plant commitments must still be negotiated into final documents. The municipal-utility study does not itself create a City-owned electric utility. Florida’s property-tax amendment has not yet been approved by voters and is currently subject to a ballot-language challenge.
Procedural rulings should not be confused with merits decisions
The Florida Supreme Court’s redistricting order addressed jurisdiction. Bost addressed candidate standing. The current executive-order election matter is before the United States Supreme Court on an emergency stay application. Each ruling must be understood within its procedural posture.
Exact language matters
The wording of a ballot summary can determine whether voters receive fair notice. Insurance-policy language may allocate the burden of proving prejudice. A rent-deposit order may trigger mandatory statutory consequences. A proposal for settlement may fail because it does not apportion terms among multiple parties.
Public promises require enforceable documents
Redevelopment announcements, community-benefit commitments, infrastructure plans, and proposed governmental programs become meaningful when the governing documents define performance, deadlines, oversight, remedies, and accountability.
Legal research requires independent verification
Florida’s amended Rule 2.515 confirms that the person signing a court filing is responsible for ensuring that the authorities identified actually exist and are accurately cited. That duty remains with the signer regardless of the tools used to prepare the document.
Favorable evidence must be identified and addressed
The veterans decision in Stinson reinforces a principle that reaches beyond veterans law: a reasoned legal decision should confront material evidence favoring the affected party rather than simply reciting the evidence supporting the result.
The Role of First Counsel
Legal issues rarely remain confined to one category. A City infrastructure decision can affect property taxes, utility rates, construction, insurance, commercial leases, and property values. A business dispute can involve contracts, real estate, emergency relief, settlement strategy, and appellate procedure. A veteran who receives disability compensation may also need estate planning, business advice, property assistance, or other legal support.
The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. approaches these overlapping concerns through its role as a community-focused First Counsel law firm. Our purpose is to help clients understand the legal landscape, identify the appropriate next step, and use the law as a tool to move toward a more secure position.
Anyone facing a Florida civil dispute, business issue, real-estate problem, veterans disability matter, estate-planning need, or other legal concern may contact our office to discuss available options.
The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A.
St. Petersburg, Florida
1-800-704-6045
www.GetYourLegalAction.com
This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Legal rights and deadlines depend on the particular facts, governing documents, procedural posture, and applicable law. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court proceedings, government proposals, and pending matters discussed in this article may change after the publication date.
