by Mike Sharkey
Staff Writer
By now, Scott Makar should be on a first-name basis with the country’s highest legal authorities.
During the 2009-10 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, Makar argued four of the state’s five cases heard by the nine-member panel. Makar, formerly of the Office of General Counsel, is the State Solicitor General. He spends about half of his time in Tallahassee and the other half in the Jacksonville office of the Solicitor General, which is on the Southbank.
The fifth Florida case heard by the Supreme Court was presented by Deputy Attorney General Joe Jacquot, who formerly practiced law in Jacksonville.
According to Makar, the State of Florida has presented cases in front of the Supreme Court for the past 30 years or so, but the average is fewer than one a year.
“Five in a single year has never occurred in Florida,” he said, adding a lot of work goes into preparing to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court.
“Each case involves substantial effort, beginning with research and writing legal briefs and later presenting oral arguments in Washington, D.C.”
Makar’s first case was presented Nov. 9, which started a 23-day period in which Makar went before the Supreme Court three times. In fact, two of the cases were argued on consecutive days, something he says is rare. The last case was argued March 1.
“The only attorney to have more arguments before the Court this term has been the U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has argued five cases for the federal government,” said Makar.
The four cases represented a variety of issues. Makar explained two cases, Florida v. Graham and Florida v. Sullivan, involve the question of whether life without parole for a non-homicide violates a minor’s constitutional right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
“Another, Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, involves whether the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s Beach and Shore Renourishment Act is a judicial taking which violates the federal constitution,” he said.
“The fourth, Holland v. Florida, involves whether an attorney’s gross negligence in missing a filing deadline is excusable under the federal habeas laws.”
Jacquot’s case, Powell v. Florida, involved whether a Miranda warning issued by the City of Tampa was inadequate. That case was argued in December and the Court recently ruled 7-2 that the city’s warning was constitutional.
A ruling has yet to be handed down in any of Makar’s four cases, but he expects them all by the time the Supreme Court’s term ends in June.
“He (Jacquot) has been ribbing me a bit because he got his favorable decision quickly and that none of my four cases have been decided yet,” said Makar.
Makar has been Solicitor General since 2007.
356-2466