Florida School Challenges Ruling on Pre-Game Prayer
The school wants the appeals court to overturn a ruling that found the Florida High School Athletic Association is a "state actor" and did not violate First Amendment rights when it refused to allow a prayer over the public-address system before a game.
August 10, 2022 at 11:34 AM
4 minute read
A Tampa Christian school has asked a federal appeals court to find that the Florida High School Athletic Association unconstitutionally prevented a prayer over a stadium loudspeaker before a 2015 high-school football championship game.
In a 74-page brief filed Monday at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for Cambridge Christian School cited legal precedents, including a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of a Bremerton, Wash., high-school football coach who lost his job after praying on the field after games.
Cambridge Christian wants the Atlanta-based appeals court to overturn an April ruling by U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, who said the Florida High School Athletic Association is a "state actor" and did not violate First Amendment rights when it refused to allow a prayer over the public-address system before a game between Cambridge Christian School and Jacksonville's University Christian School.
"FHSAA (the association) claims that all speech over the loudspeaker is government speech," the school's brief said. "Yet the record shows that FHSAA permits schools and other private actors to deliver a variety of messages over the loudspeaker: welcoming remarks, promotions, music, and even prayers (at all games except the championship). Moreover, FHSAA uses the loudspeaker to call for moments of silence, deliver ethical messages, promote sportsmanship, and honor persons and events. But it will not allow these same themes to be expressed under a religious banner. Because the prayer ban constitutes viewpoint discrimination, and has been arbitrarily applied, it violates CCS's (Cambridge Christian's) free-speech rights."
The brief is dotted with references to the high-profile June U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case known as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, along with other court precedents. The Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Joseph Kennedy on free-speech and free exercise of religion claims.
As an example, Cambridge Christian attorneys quoted the Kennedy case and an earlier case as they argued that during the "past term the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects not just religious faith but also 'the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of … physical acts.'"
They argued that communal prayer is a "sincere religious practice that permeates life" at Cambridge Christian.
"Communal prayer is conducted during morning announcements over the PA system; in the classroom; on the athletic fields; and at performing arts events, staff meetings, trustee meetings, graduations, and just about every other gathering of all or a portion of the CCS community," the brief said. "This religious practice is a manifestation of deeply held religious belief."
But in her April ruling, Honeywell wrote that the case "is not about whether two Christian schools may pray together at a football game," noting that players and coaches met on the field of Orlando's Camping World Stadium to pray before and after the 2015 game.
"The issue before the court is whether the First Amendment required the FHSAA (the association) to grant the teams unrestricted access to the PA system to deliver the prayer over the loudspeaker during the pregame," Honeywell wrote. "Thus, the questions to be answered are whether the inability to pray over the loudspeaker during the pregame of the state championship final football game violated CCS's (Cambridge Christian's) First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. … (The) court concludes that the First Amendment does not apply because the speech at issue is government speech, but even if some portion of the speech is considered private speech, the court finds no constitutional violation occurred."
Honeywell initially dismissed the case in 2017, but the appeals court in 2019 overturned the dismissal and sent the case back to Honeywell for further consideration. That led to her April judgment in favor of the association.
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 All4th DCA: 'Trial Court Erred;' Big Law Partial Victory after $82M Flo Rida Verdict Appeal
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Florida Court's Reversal of Attorney Fees Triggered by Client's Death
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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