A federal judge has ruled that Florida’s requirement for municipal elected officials and candidates to file the more extensive Form 6 financial disclosure is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. In a November 9, 2026, decision in Loper v. Lukis, U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian granted summary judgment to 175 municipal officials challenging the 2023 legislation that expanded the disclosure mandate.

The dispute arose from Senate Bill 774, enacted in 2023 and effective January 1, 2024. Previously, municipal officials and candidates filed Form 1, which reports specified financial interests without requiring specific amounts to be provided. SB 774 required mayors and other elected municipal governing body members to file Form 6, disclosing net worth, income information, and the values of assets and liabilities above $1,000. Officials who failed to comply faced fines and potentially other sanctions, including a recommendation of removal from office if the failure to file was found to be willful.

The municipal officials filed a federal lawsuit in February 2024, contending that mandatory public disclosure of extensive personal financial information amounted to unconstitutional compelled speech. A related action was also filed in Leon County state court. In June 2024 Judge Damian issued a preliminarily injunction blocking enforcement of SB 774, and the Florida Commission on Ethics appealed and both sides sought summary judgment.

The Florida Commission on Ethics defended the expanded disclosures as a means of deterring corruption and conflicts of interest, promoting public confidence, and informing voters. Judge Damian recognized those important government interests but found that the record did not establish why Form 1 was inadequate or why the more intrusive Form 6 requirements were necessary. Applying First Amendment exacting scrutiny standard the court concluded that the Ethics Commission had failed to show “that less burdensome requirements do not or would not serve the same government interests.”

In Monday’s ruling the court declared invalid the portions of SB 774 requiring municipal elected officials and candidates to file Form 6 instead of Form 1. It held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction, but reserved the injunction’s scope for a later order following further briefing. It is important to note that the decision does not strike down Florida’s financial disclosure system as a whole.

The litigation also highlighted concerns about public service. As noted in the 2024 preliminary injunction, in the wake of the passage of SB 774 more than 100 city officials resigned rather than face the more burdensome transparency requirments applicable to county commissioners and other elected constitutional officers. Thus, the Nov 9 ruling underscores the tension between financial transparency and constitutional limits on compelled disclosure. However, its ultimate reach remains subject to subsequent court orders.

The federal case is Elizabeth A. Loper et al. v. Lukis et al., case number 1:24-cv-20604, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The state court case is Town of Briny Breezes, Florida et al. v. Lukis et al., case number 2024-CA-000283, in the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.