Federal Appeals Court Ready to Consider Pre-Game Prayer
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear arguments next Wednesday in a case filed by Tampa's Cambridge Christian School against the Florida High School Athletic Association.
September 20, 2018 at 12:13 PM
4 minute read
Nearly three years after Christian schools from Tampa and Jacksonville squared off in a high-school football championship, a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments about the constitutionality of a decision that prevented the schools from offering a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker before kickoff.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear arguments next Wednesday in a case filed by Tampa's Cambridge Christian School against the Florida High School Athletic Association.
A federal judge last year upheld a decision by the association to prevent a prayer over the loudspeaker at Orlando's Camping World Stadium before a December 2015 championship game between Cambridge Christian and Jacksonville's University Christian School. Cambridge Christian appealed, arguing the decision violated First Amendment rights.
“The facts are clear and undisputed: Communal prayer is integral to Cambridge Christian's religious mission, and the Cambridge Christian community was unable to engage in its tradition of communal pre-game prayer due to the FHSAA's denial of its request to use the loudspeaker to express a religious viewpoint,” attorneys for the school wrote in a brief appealing the district judge's ruling. “That denial substantially burdened and adversely affected Cambridge Christian's freedom of religious exercise.”
But the association, which governs high-school sports in Florida, said it is a “state actor” and that the “nature of speech occurring over the public-address system is government speech.”
“Cambridge Christian, a parochial school, sought to force FHSAA's unconstitutional help in communicating a sectarian religious message to a captive audience at a state-run championship game,” attorneys for the association wrote in a brief. “As the district court recognized, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and [a section of Florida law] do not compel the enlistment of state actors, like FHSAA, to engage in proselytization of audience members attending state-sponsored sporting events.”
U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell last year said the association has procedures that include allowing a designated public-address announcer to use the loudspeaker for approved announcements. She wrote that it is “clear that if the prayer was offered by the public-address announcer, this would be viewed as an endorsement by the state, which would be impermissible.”
The Atlanta-based appeals court agreed early this year to hear oral arguments in the case. The arguments will take place at the federal courthouse in Jacksonville.
After the association denied the use of the loudspeaker, players from the teams prayed on the field before the game. But in its brief, Cambridge Christian said supporters of the schools were not able to participate without the use of the public-address system.
“By prohibiting Cambridge Christian from leading its students and their families and fans in a brief communal prayer, the FHSAA engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits state actors, like the FHSAA, from basing a decision to allow or disallow the use of state-controlled facilities for private speech based on the viewpoint expressed by the intended private speaker and prohibits such actors from imposing restrictions on private religious speech that are greater than the restrictions imposed on private secular speech,” Cambridge Christian's brief said.
But attorneys for the association disputed such arguments.
“FHSAA never denied Cambridge Christian the ability to express itself through prayer prior, during, or following the game,” the association's brief said. “But the law does not require — and for good and valid reason does not permit — FHSAA to promote sectarian prayer through its state-run public-address system.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250