Florida appeals court orders full expungement of Hope Florida report

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has directed a Leon County court to expunge in full a grand-jury presentment concerning a $10 million payment connected to a Medicaid settlement. The ruling reverses a lower-court decision that had removed most, but not all, of the document from court records.

The appellate court said the presentment went beyond the grand jury’s authority by condemning named people for alleged unlawful conduct without indicting them. It also found that the state attorney’s disclosure of the confidential document before affected people could challenge it provided an independent reason for full expungement.

The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Leon County, and the First District Court of Appeal issued the ruling. The decision, in In re: Leon County Grand Jury Presentment, Fall of 2025, was issued October 7, 2026.

Why the court ordered full expungement

The grand jury issued the 116-page presentment on January 28, 2026. Its 19-page body and 97 pages of exhibits addressed a $10 million payment to the Hope Florida Foundation in connection with a settlement involving Centene Corporation. The grand jury returned no indictment and acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone criminally, according to the appellate opinion.

Even so, the majority said, the presentment made criminal-like findings against named people. It also concluded that the document’s central claim—that the $10 million had been misappropriated in violation of cited statutes—was not supported by the facts recited in the presentment and exceeded the grand jury’s authority in these circumstances.

The majority’s reasoning included the structure and timing of the settlement. The cited statutes concerned court actions or court settlements, the opinion said, but the Centene agreement came before any civil action was filed. The $10 million was paid directly to the foundation, rather than to the state.

The court separately faulted State Attorney Jack Campbell’s office for sending the confidential presentment in mass emails on January 28 and 29 to at least 49 recipients. The majority said the disclosure came before affected people had the statutory opportunity to seek repression or expungement. That violation independently supported the full-expungement order.

Judge Bilbrey agreed with the outcome but would have ordered expungement solely because of the disclosure, without deciding the majority’s substantive analysis of the presentment. Judge Thomas also concurred. The result was unanimous, though the judges did not all join the majority’s reasoning.

Settlement figures and the limits of the order

The opinion describes the September 2024 Centene settlement as totaling $67,048,611, with $57,048,611 going to the state and a separate $10 million paid to the foundation. It says the foundation approved two grants of $5 million each to Secure Florida’s Future and Save Our Society From Drugs; those groups then donated to Keep Florida Clean, a political committee opposing a proposed recreational-marijuana amendment.

The appellate court also highlighted a discrepancy in the presentment’s account of the state’s recovery. The presentment treated $56,248,611.64 as the full amount recovered and said the state was short $800,000. Citing the settlement offer letter, the opinion said the state received $57,048,611.64—$800,000 more than that figure. The court said it noted the difference to illustrate inconsistency in the presentment, not to make its own factual findings.

In July, the circuit court had expunged roughly 112 pages of the 116-page document but denied a request to remove it entirely. The First District reversed that denial and related orders requiring the state attorney to notify outside intervenors of appeals. It sent the case back with directions to expunge the presentment in full.

The order concerns court records; it does not remove copies already leaked or published. The appellate opinion says the decision is not final until any timely and authorized postdecision motion is resolved. Once final, the circuit court is to carry out the full-expungement direction. The ruling does not resolve every question about the later movement or use of the funds.