POLISCOPE
Back to feed
HB 547FLORIDA · STATEWIDESession 2026Died in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee

Proposed New Legal Protections for Victims of Serious Violence

Original title: Injunctions for Protection

November 25, 2025

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Where This Stands

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Signed

Currently Died in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.

Procedural history

6 actions
  1. Jan 13, 2026HouseIntroduced
    1st Reading (Original Filed Version)
  2. Dec 12, 2025House
    Now in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee
  3. Dec 12, 2025HouseCommittee
    Referred to Judiciary Committee
  4. Dec 12, 2025HouseCommittee
    Referred to Justice Budget Subcommittee
  5. Dec 12, 2025HouseCommittee
    Referred to Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee
  6. Nov 25, 2025HouseIntroduced
    Filed

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

The Frame

What this does

This bill would have established a new legal pathway for victims of serious violence to secure court protection, impacting how law enforcement and courts handle these cases and providing a $40 reimbursement mechanism for court clerks per petition.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Victims of serious violence

They would have gained the legal standing to file for protective injunctions against known abusers.

Court clerks

They would have been required to provide simplified forms and assistance to petitioners and would have been eligible for $40 reimbursements per petition.

Law enforcement officers

They would have been required to immediately serve these injunctions and hold violators in custody until a court appearance.

What changed

Current stage: Died in Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee.

What's next

Floor Vote.

Summary

HB 547 would have created a new legal process for victims of 'serious violence by a known person' to obtain court-ordered protection. The bill aimed to allow victims to file for injunctions without an attorney and prohibited court clerks from charging filing fees for these requests.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is 'serious violence by a known person' under this bill?
It is defined as an act of violence between people who know each other that results in serious bodily injury, such as a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or the loss of function of a body part.
Do I need a lawyer to file for this protection?
No, the bill explicitly states that a cause of action for an injunction does not require the petitioner to be represented by an attorney.
Will I have to pay a fee to file for this injunction?
No, the bill prohibits the clerk of the court from assessing a fee for filing a petition for protection against serious violence by a known person.

Why It Matters

This bill would have established a new legal pathway for victims of serious violence to secure court protection, impacting how law enforcement and courts handle these cases and providing a $40 reimbursement mechanism for court clerks per petition.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Lobbying Activity

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2025

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In opposition to threats against the judiciary that erode constitutional safeguards, including the JUDGES Act (H.R. 1702), the PEPPER Act (H.R. 1789), the NORRA Act (H.R. 1526), and the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act. In support of more robust funding to protect Congressional Members, staff, and families but also greater transparency on the threats. In support of judiciary security amendments to the reconciliation bill, (H.R.1) In support of the MARSHALS Act (S.1873) to transfer oversight of the U.S. Marshals to the judicial branch. In support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act to prevent abuses of Presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference In support of reforms to the National Emergencies Act. In opposition to the SAVE Act (H.R.22) and impediments to the right to vote. In support of federal election security funding. In opposition to the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. In opposition to Executive impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds. In opposition to politicization of the armed forces. In support of more transparency around RIFs and protection of the federal civil service. In opposition to tax bill language designating non-profits as "supporters of terrorism." In opposition to reducing the funding of the Government Accountability Office.

Sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift100% confidence

Expansion of Protective Injunctions

The bill sought to create a new category of protective injunctions that mirrors existing protections for domestic, dating, and sexual violence, specifically targeting 'serious violence by a known person'.

Connected Entities

organizationCivil Justice & Claims Subcommitteereviewing the billMap →
date2025-11-25when the bill was filedMap →
date2025-12-12when the bill was referred to subcommitteesMap →
organizationDepartment of Law EnforcementThe department tasked with maintaining the statewide communication system for inMap →
organizationJustice Administrative CommissionThe agency responsible for managing reimbursement requests for court clerks.Map →
date2026-01-13when the bill had its first readingMap →
organizationJudiciary Committeereviewing the billMap →
organizationFlorida Association of Court Clerks and ComptrollersThe organization tasked with developing an automated notification process for seMap →
organizationFlorida LegislatureThe body that would have enacted the proposed changes.Map →
organizationJustice Budget Subcommitteereviewing the billMap →

Sources

Open source document

openstates.org

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance65
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy40
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz10
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record