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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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
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 -