DIVERSITY CORNER
DIVERSITY CORNER
Florida SB 1662 Would Eliminate Consideration of Diversity in Florida Government Decision-Making
BRYAN ANDERSON
On January 16, 2026, Florida State Senator Stan McClain introduced Senate Bill 1662( SB 1662) directed at removing many diversity, equity and inclusion policies provided for in Florida statutes.
Entitled“ an act relating to prohibited preferences”, SB 1662 contains more than 70 provisions removing current requirements supporting diversity, equity and inclusion considerations and practices from Florida state government administration, including:
• Removes the requirement that racial, ethnic, and gender diversity be considered in appointing commissioners to a wide variety of Florida administrative agencies and boards;
• Removes the requirement that the Florida State University College of Medicine conduct outreach efforts for its Program in Medical Sciences to middle and high school minority students; and
• Eliminates a host of supplier diversity requirements including, the mechanisms for determining and reporting expenditures made with diverse businesses.
Is SB 1662’ s Proposed Elimination of the Consideration of Diversity Legal?
It is a good bet that if passed, SB 1662 will engender litigation concerning whether the law complies with Florida residents’ rights to the equal protection under the law and other constitutional requirements and Florida and federal civil rights statutes.
SB 1662 contains so many eliminations of diversity considerations in so many contexts it will be a challenge for advocates to even begin assessing the effects and legality of the individual provisions.
Even if some portions of SB 1662 are litigated and stricken, the severability doctrine would likely allow many provisions to stand until they are specifically challenged. The severability doctrine is used by courts in statutory challenge cases to preserve the remaining portions of statutes not expressly found to be invalid.
Decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion provisions in Florida statutes will be eliminated instantaneously if SB 1662 in passed into law.
How SB 1662 Would Affect Florida Governmental Decision-Making
Many Florida statutes targeted by SB 1662 require consideration of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in making government decisions, even though such consideration is not necessarily a determining factor.
Under existing law, proponents of diversity can point to requirements for consideration of diversity and seek to admit evidence and provide information on the effects of information from a diversity perspective because such information is directly relevant pursuant to statute. Orders and decision-making documents not reflecting required diversity consideration can be argued to be legally deficient.
This would be changed by passage of SB 1662. Those opposing consideration of diversity information would be able to argue that evidence related to diversity, equity, and inclusion should be excluded from hearings and government decision making because the amendments in SB 1662 will have expressly removed the requirement to consider such information.
Proponents of diversity would have to seek inclusion of diversity-related information in hearings and decision-making processes under a theory that such consideration is otherwise relevant and not precluded by SB 1662. Seeking consideration of a matter not specified as required by law in a hearing issues list, jury instructions or a challenge to a government decision is an uphill battle at best.
By eliminating legal requirements to consider diversity information, passing SB 1662 will make it difficult, if not impossible, to win an argument that a decision is deficient if diversity evidence is not admitted, considered or an element of a resulting decision.
Is It Still Necessary to Pursue Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?
If we lived in a post-discrimination world, we might expect to see greater equity in wealth, health, and opportunities for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender. Finding broad conditions of equity factually existing in the real world would support an argument that the time to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion has successfully concluded.
What do the facts show? African Americans have lower life expectancy, worse health, higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, higher exposure to environmental toxins, and overall worse health outcomes compared to white people. Similar inequities exist in the deep racial wealth and income divide. The pattern of inequities extends to gender as well, with women generally continuing to have lower wealth and pay.
Data for other racial, ethnic, and gender groups show similar patterns of inequity resulting from past and present discrimination. If Florida residents support reducing these and other inequities, it seems premature for the Florida legislature to enact legislation discontinuing diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
Defeating SB 1662 Will Help Advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Florida residents supporting racial, ethnic, and gender diversity should ask their legislators to oppose SB 1662. Defeating SB 1662 and other bills like it will preserve the obligation of government actors to seek and receive information concerning how their actions will affect diverse groups, and to explain in their decision-making process how they consider diversity and how it affects their ultimate decisions.
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 11