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
© 2025 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 AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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