Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz generally follows a conservative textualist approach, emphasizing constitutional text, original public meaning, statutory language, and deference to elected lawmakers. His abortion and redistricting rulings are highly controversial because they reversed precedent or upheld disputed state policies, yet his vote to place the abortion amendment before voters demonstrates judicial restraint despite his personal opposition. Overall, his record strongly favors constitutional and statutory interpretation over judicial policymaking, although critics dispute how he applies history and precedent in politically consequential cases.

Judge Alan O. Forst’s record generally reflects statutory interpretation, adherence to precedent and judicial restraint, including protecting offensive political speech under the First Amendment in Logue v. Book. His more controversial ruling permitted forfeiture of court-appointed counsel after extreme misconduct, but it applied an established constitutional framework rather than creating new policy. Overall, Forst appears to rule consistently within constitutional and statutory boundaries, with no clear pattern of legislating from the bench. (Logue analysis, K.R. report)

Judge Mark W. Klingensmith’s opinions generally emphasize statutory language, precedent, and limits on judicial authority. In Logue v. Book, he strongly defended offensive political speech against prior restraint, while City of Hollywood v. Arem rejected the delegation of governmental enforcement decisions to a private vendor. His decision upholding Florida’s open carry prohibition followed the constitutional framework then in effect, before the U.S. Supreme Court changed the governing Second Amendment test in Bruen. Overall, his record reflects restrained, precedent based judging, although gun rights advocates may reasonably object to the practical result in Norman v. State. (Arem opinion, Norman opinion)