SB918: Modifies provisions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony evidence

The legislation would impact over 110,000 Florida youth.

Employment of Minors; Deleting certain restrictions on minors 16 and 17 years of age being employed, permitted, or suffered to work; revising the exceptions to such restrictions for certain minors; de...

I urge you to strongly oppose SB918 (Burger), SB1309 (Trent), and HB 2255 (Hovis) as regressive measures that will further weaponize our courts against grassroots movements and marginalized communities and tilt an already uneven playing field further in favor of powerful corporate and institutional defendants. These bills create a costly, pre-trial gauntlet where a judge, not a jury, becomes the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific and technical truth. The vague command that an expert's opinion must "reflect a reliable application" of methods grants judges extraordinary, subjective discretion. This is a direct threat to community-based and activist experts. A judge with inherent biases could easily exploit this language to dismiss a qualified environmental scientist testifying about pollution's health impacts because they are also a community activist, deeming their passion as "bias" that taints their conclusion's "reflection." An experienced homeless advocate could be barred from explaining systemic failures because a judge decides their advocacy shapes their analysis. These bills empower courts to disqualify experts not for flawed science, but for their politics and lived experience—precisely the perspectives needed to challenge powerful interests. The immense cost of this new pre-trial process alone will silence community groups and individuals, while corporations easily afford endless challenges. This isn't neutral procedure; it's a systemic filter to exclude the voices of the oppressed and protect the status quo from accountability. It tilts the scales of justice toward the powerful and insulates them from the very experts who understand the harm they cause. I urge you to defend democratic access to the courts and vote NO on SB918, SB1309, and HB2255.

A year after Florida approved a bill to loosen child labor laws, another one is advancing through the state Senate. Here's what to know about SB 918

Text SIGN PQCWSR to 50409 — I urge you to strongly oppose SB918 (Burger), SB1309 (Trent), and HB 2255 (Hovis) as regressive measures that will further weaponize our courts against grassroots movements and marginalized communities and tilt an already uneven playing field further in favor of powerful corporate and institutional defendants. These bills create a costly, pre-trial gauntlet where a judge, not a jury, becomes the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific and technical truth. The vague command that an expert's opinion must "reflect a reliable application" of methods grants judges extraordinary, subjective discretion. This is a direct threat to community-based and activist experts. A judge with inherent biases could easily exploit this language to dismiss a qualified environmental scientist testifying about pollution's health impacts because they are also a community activist, deeming their passion as "bias" that taints their conclusion's "reflection." An experienced homeless advocate could be barred from explaining systemic failures because a judge decides their advocacy shapes their analysis. These bills empower courts to disqualify experts not for flawed science, but for their politics and lived experience—precisely the perspectives needed to challenge powerful interests. The immense cost of this new pre-trial process alone will silence community groups and individuals, while corporations easily afford endless challenges. This isn't neutral procedure; it's a systemic filter to exclude the voices of the oppressed and protect the status quo from accountability. It tilts the scales of justice toward the powerful and insulates them from the very experts who understand the harm they cause. I urge you to defend democratic access to the courts and vote NO on SB918, SB1309, and HB2255.

The Virginia Senate passed a series of amendments on Thursday to state DUI laws, exempting drivers operating a motor vehicle on their residential property from being charged. The bill, SB918, introduced by Sen. Richard H. Stuart, R-Montross, adds two clauses to state law specifying that the current law “shall not

SB918 permits recovery of costs in frivolous agency order reviews effective November 2025

SB918: Modifies provisions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony evidence

detrimental to children, who need more sleep than adults and regulated schedules for optimal mental and physical well-being. This should not be a soluti As a constituent I am writing to OPPOSE SB 918 which would allow minors to work overnight shifts. I disagree with this bill because it is developmentally on for holes left by immigrant workers at the risk of our youth.

The Virginia Senate passed a series of amendments on Thursday to state DUI laws, exempting drivers operating a motor vehicle on their residential property from being charged. The bill, SB918, introdu...

Text SIGN PQCWSR to 50409 — I urge you to strongly oppose SB918 (Burger), SB1309 (Trent), and HB 2255 (Hovis) as regressive measures that will further weaponize our courts against grassroots movements and marginalized communities and tilt an already uneven playing field further in favor of powerful corporate and institutional defendants. These bills create a costly, pre-trial gauntlet where a judge, not a jury, becomes the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific and technical truth. The vague command that an expert's opinion must "reflect a reliable application" of methods grants judges extraordinary, subjective discretion. This is a direct threat to community-based and activist experts. A judge with inherent biases could easily exploit this language to dismiss a qualified environmental scientist testifying about pollution's health impacts because they are also a community activist, deeming their passion as "bias" that taints their conclusion's "reflection." An experienced homeless advocate could be barred from explaining systemic failures because a judge decides their advocacy shapes their analysis. These bills empower courts to disqualify experts not for flawed science, but for their politics and lived experience—precisely the perspectives needed to challenge powerful interests. The immense cost of this new pre-trial process alone will silence community groups and individuals, while corporations easily afford endless challenges. This isn't neutral procedure; it's a systemic filter to exclude the voices of the oppressed and protect the status quo from accountability. It tilts the scales of justice toward the powerful and insulates them from the very experts who understand the harm they cause. I urge you to defend democratic access to the courts and vote NO on SB918, SB1309, and HB2255.