(FreedomBeacon.com)- Former Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren, suspended from office in 2022 for “dereliction of duty and incompetence,” won a request to expedite his lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Wednesday in a U.S. appeals court.
Obama appointee Judge Jill Pryor of the Court of Appeals is speeding up the review of Warren’s complaint, in which he alleges that Governor DeSantis acted illegally by “canceling the votes of hundreds of thousands of Floridians.”
In court papers submitted on February 14, Warren’s lawyers argued that the public needs to know as soon as possible whether or not the Governor illegally deposed an elected chief prosecutor in one of Florida’s most significant cities and who lawfully occupies that critical office.
One of the most important constitutional questions is whether or not the Governor of Florida can use his power to remove other elected officials to stifle speech he disapproves of. Another important question is whether or not the First Amendment limits the Governor’s power to remove other elected officials in Florida. Until this question is resolved, it is unclear how much protection is afforded to the basic political speech of the State’s elected leaders.
The trial is scheduled for the first week of May in Montgomery, Alabama.
On January 20, a federal district judge ruled that DeSantis’ suspension of Warren violated the First Amendment and the Florida state constitution. However, Warren’s attorneys appealed the ruling because the judge said the court lacked the authority to provide declaratory or injunctive relief.
DeSantis says he suspended Warren for “neglecting his obligations” after the Democrat prosecutor vowed not to charge anybody who violates state abortion limitations or bans on gender-transition surgeries for minors. Warren receives funding from George Soros, a left-wing billionaire.
A court decided that Warren’s suspension was contrary to federal and state legislation in Florida and the United States, and Warren’s attorney, David O’Neil, told Reuters on Wednesday that his client should have been returned.
It is imperative to decide swiftly the critical First Amendment difficulties this case involves, as stated by O’Neil, was recognized by the appeals court.