Judge declines to immediately halt Hope Florida ads; appeals court weighs unsealing filings
The legal position of the Hope Florida grand jury report, already widely reported but also expunged by an appellate court, grew murkier Tuesday amid a multi-pronged effort to prohibit any publication of the document.
A group of people named in the grand jury report, first leaked in August, petitioned the 1st District Court of Appeal on Friday to "prohibit illegal publication" of the report, but the request was denied. The substance of the petition and the court order aren't publicly available, but the case docket shows the petition was denied.
In a separate case filed by the Republican Party of Florida, a Highlands County judge on Tuesday rejected its request to immediately stop television stations from airing political ads from the Florida Democratic Party highlighting the report. RPOF had filed the lawsuit late Friday evening, as first reported by the Florida Trident. Judge Peter Estrada denied the request to immediately halt the ads but ordered a hearing on the matter.
The 1st DCA has already ordered Leon County State Attorney Jack Campbell, who oversaw the grand jury proceedings, to justify his actions in handling the report. Now, it's ordering those named in the report to show why the entire court proceedings shouldn't be made public.
In two separate cases before the 1st DCA, the court on Monday and Tuesday ordered those named in the report to, within five days, "show cause why the briefs, record on appeal, notices, motions, and other filings of the parties should not be given unrestricted status on the docket and made available for public viewing."
The report was finalized in January. It found that, in 2024, the diversion of $10 million from a $67 million Medicaid settlement ended up in a political committee headed by James Uthmeier, then-Gov. Ron DeSantis' chief of staff, meant the money was "misappropriated"; no one could be indicted in the case.
Uthmeier was later appointed by DeSantis as attorney general in January 2025, and is in the middle of an election campaign against Democrat Jose Javier Rodriguez, a former state senator who was named as a defendant in RPOF's lawsuit.
The money was first given to the Hope Florida Foundation as part of the settlement with Centene to resolve overpayments. That group then gave the money to two nonprofits, which in turn gave it to Uthmeier's political committee, which opposed two measures on the 2024 ballot. The proposals would have legalized recreational marijuana and installed a right to an abortion in the state constitution, but failed to pass.
What the leak and expungement mean for the grand jury report
The lack of an indictment means that, under state law, the report can be sealed and blocked from public view. Those named in the report petitioned a trial court to prevent its publication, and the court partially agreed, allowing some redactions to be made public.
Those named in the report appealed to the 1st DCA, which originally ruled on Aug. 25 that the grand jury presentment should be expunged, but that ruling was also kept hidden from public view. Within 24 hours, CBS News Miami published the unredacted report.
In its expungement order, the 1st DCA found that the grand jury was incorrect as a matter of law and that the $10 million was never "state money" because it was part of a settlement completed before any legal action was initiated; therefore, the money wasn't "misappropriated."
The leak prompted an inquest by the 1st DCA. Initially, Campbell pointed to the 1st DCA's administration, but the court stated it had not received the unredacted grand jury report until Sept. 9.
On Oct. 9, the court gave Campbell five days to show why a special master shouldn't be appointed to investigate the leak of the report, why he shouldn't be sanctioned for implying the clerks of the trial court or the 1st DCA had inadvertently leaked the report, and why he shouldn't be referred to the Florida Bar for disciplinary action. Campbell responded on Oct. 13 with a more than 200-page filing, but that has been sealed by the court.
On Friday, the court ordered Campbell to detail which parts of his response should be redacted. And on Monday and Tuesday, the two orders were issued to all parties involved, requiring them to justify why the court filings shouldn't be made public.