Mahr Did Not Set Upper Limit Of Amounts Awardable To Wife In Divorce

In Parbeen v. Bari, (FL App., March 16, 2022), a Florida state appellate court held that a traditional Islamic prenuptial agreement-- a Mahr-- in setting an amount payable upon divorce did not eliminate the wife's right to temporary support, alimony, equitable distribution of property and attorneys' fees under Florida law. While the Mahr's secular terms are enforceable under Florida contract law, the Mahr did not set the maximum amount payable to the wife. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Florida Passes 15-Week Abortion Ban

Yesterday the Florida legislature gave final passage to H5 (full text) which, among other things, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother's life, to avert serious risk of imminent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or in the case of a non-viable fetus that has a fatal abnormality. AP reports on the legislation.

Parents Who Headed Capital Drive Sue Catholic School For Straying From Mainstream Catholicism

Suit was filed in a Florida state trial court last month by the parents of two Catholic school students who were the joint chairs of the school's $9 million capital campaign. They had personally pledged over $1.35 million to the campaign and paid a portion of that pledge. They now seek to have the court declare the pledge null and void, and order return to them of pledged amounts already paid, as well as tuition paid for their daughters. The complaint (full text) in Scarpo v. Academy of the Holy Names of Florida, Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/26/2021), alleges in part:

[I]n Defendants' zeal to embrace the politically correct, "woke" culture currently in vogue, the Defendants breached Defendants' promises to provide Plaintiffs minor children with a Cahtolic [sic.] Education in return for Plaintiffs paying tuition and fund-raising for the Academy of the Holy Names....

[T]he Academy lost its way, distancing itself from mainstream Catholicism, and embracing the new, politically correct, divisive and "woke" culture where gender identity, human sexuality, and pregnancy termination among other "hot-button issues," took center stage and mainstream Catholicism and Catholic Catechism were relegated to what was billed as an unfortunate past deserving of its Students guilt for not having been "woke" sooner.

Friendly Atheist blog reports on the case, as does AP.

Florida Governor Signs Law Barring Transgender Women From Women's High School and College Teams

Yesterday Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 1028 (full text) into law. (Press release from Governor.) Section 12 of the law enacts the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" which bans transgender women from competing on women's sports teams sponsored by public high schools or colleges. The Act provides in part:

(b) Athletic teams or sports designated for males, men, or boys may be open to students of the female sex.

(c) Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex.

(d) For purposes of this section, a statement of a student’s biological sex on the student’s official birth certificate is considered to have correctly stated the student’s biological sex at birth if the statement was filed at or near the time of the student’s birth.

The Act gives a civil cause of action to students or schools injured by a violation of the Act. 

Church's Suit Against Bank Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., (FL App., May 26, 2021), a Florida state appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a Baptist church against a bank for negligently transferring control of the church's bank accounts to the widow of the deceased pastor. The court said in part:

Here, although the Church’s negligence claims against the Banks involve a question of control over bank accounts, in order to resolve those claims the court would necessarily have to decide which faction within the Church controls the bank accounts. The only way for the court to make this determination is for it to consider the Church’s internal governance structure. “[Q]uestions of church governance are manifestly ecclesiastical.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Judge Winter dissented, saying in part:

Appellants argued that the case could be decided on neutral legal principles, and to determine otherwise goes beyond the four corners of the complaint. At best, therefore, dismissal was premature. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to church property disputes in hierarchical religious organizations. A different rule applies to churches which are congregational organizations. Based upon the correct rule, dismissal was error.

Florida State Settles With Catholic Student Who Was Removed As Student Senate Head

As previously reported, last October a student court at the University of Florida concluded that the University's Student Senate violated the 1st Amendment when it removed Jack Denton, a Catholic student, from the Senate presidency. Student Senate took the action because Denton criticized Black Lives Matter, the ACLU and Reclaim the Block, saying they take views opposed to Catholic teachings. Now, the University has entered a settlement agreement (full text) with Denton under which the University has agreed to pay Denton $10,000 in damages and $1050 in back pay that he would have earned if he had remained Senate president. It will also pay Denton's attorney fees of $83,950. ADF, which represented Denton, issued a press release announcing the settlement.

11th Circuit: Juror Who Heard From Holy Spirit Should Not Have Been Removed

In United States v. Brown, (11th Cir., May 6, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, by a vote of 7-4 held that a district court judge abused his discretion in replacing a juror with an alternate in the trial of a former Florida Congresswoman who was convicted on most of the fraud, ethics and tax violation charges against her. The majority summarized:

This appeal requires us to decide whether a district judge abused his discretion by removing a juror who expressed, after the start of deliberations, that the Holy Spirit told him that the defendant, Corrine Brown, was not guilty on all charges. The juror also repeatedly assured the district judge that he was following the jury instructions and basing his decision on the evidence admitted at trial, and the district judge found him to be sincere and credible. But the district judge concluded that the juror’s statements about receiving divine guidance were categorically disqualifying. Because the record establishes a substantial possibility that the juror was rendering proper jury service, the district judge abused his discretion by dismissing the juror. The removal violated Brown’s right under the Sixth Amendment to a unanimous jury verdict. We vacate Brown’s convictions and sentence and remand for a new trial. 

Two concurring and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Judge Rosenbaum's dissent, joined by Judge Wilson and Martin, said in part:

Every judge of this Court agrees on this much: the same rule governs dismissal of both the juror who says his religious authority told him the defendant is not guilty on all charges and the one who says his religious authority told him the defendant is guilty on all charges. So let’s be clear about what we’re really doing today: we are holding that a district judge is powerless to dismiss a juror who, on a record like this one, says the Holy Spirit told him the defendant is guilty on all charges and he trusts the Holy Spirit—even though the judge finds after investigation that the juror is not capable of basing his guilty verdict on the evidence but instead will base his verdict on what he perceives to be a divine revelation.

A 3-judge panel of the 11th Circuit had affirmed the district court's decision. (See prior posting.) Politico reports on the en banc decision. 

Cutoff of Pastor's City Council Invocation Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78850 (MD FL, March 22, 2021)-- decided last month but just available on Lexis-- a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit by a pastor who contended that City Council president Aaron Bowman improperly shut off plaintiff's microphone in the middle of the invocation that he was offering. Finding that plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights were not violated, the court said in part:

First, the Court finds Mr. Bowman's actions were not viewpoint discrimination. Mr. Bowman's comment when interrupting Plaintiff and the subsequent removal of Plaintiff's amplification were for the stated purpose of preserving the invocation for its intended purpose. That purpose, according to the City, was to maintain "a tradition of solemnizing its proceedings . . . for the benefit and blessing of the Council." ...

During his invocation, Plaintiff's remarks were at times objectively disparaging of the City Council and the incumbent administration.... While the remarks might have been entirely appropriate if delivered in a more public forum or even Plaintiff's pulpit, they were subject to the reasonable and viewpoint-neutral limitations set by the City for the invocation period — a nonpublic forum.

Plaintiff has filed an appeal. Florida Politics has additional background on the case.

EEOC Sues On Behalf of Seventh Day Adventist Hotel Employee

EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination suit against a Florida resort hotel, Noble House Solé. The suit alleges that a new director of housekeeping fired a Seventh Day Adventist room attendant who refused to work on Saturdays. For the prior ten months, the employee's Sabbath observance had been accommodated.

11th Circuit En Banc Hears Oral Arguments In Case of Juror Who Heard From A Higher Being

On Tuesday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments (audio or full oral arguments) in United States v. Corrine Brown. In the case, a 3-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a juror in the fraud case of former Florida representative Corrine Brown. At issue was a statement made by one of the jurors during deliberations that "A Higher Being told me Corrine Brown was Not Guilty on all charges." (See prior posting.) News4 reports on the oral arguments.

RLUIPA Bars City's Enforcement of Parking Lot Restrictions On Church

In Pass-A-Grille Beach Community Church, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 26, 2021), a Florida federal district court, relying on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, granted a preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing restrictions on the way in which the church can use its own parking lot. The church, which is located across the street from the beach, allows the public to use its parking lot, free of charge, to access the beach. The city contends that its ordinances prohibit the church from allowing anyone who is not there on legitimate church business from parking in the lot. According to the court:

[The church] states that a vital aspect of its beliefs and ministry is outreach to the local community and the world, heeding a direct command from Christ himself. It desires to use “biblically-based hospitality” to help people enjoy a day at the beach with their families. The Church cites several Biblical verses in support of its beliefs on this point.

After concluding that the city has imposed a "substantial burden" on the church, the court analyzes the primary disagreement between the parties-- the sincerity of the church's religious beliefs regarding use of the parking lot. The court said in part:

When inquiring into a claimant's sincerity ... our task is ... limited to asking whether the claimant is (in essence) seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the court – whether he actually holds the beliefs he claims to hold.... 

The Church is certainly not attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court when it states it desires to use its parking facilities to further its mission by attracting new people. Common sense shows that attracting new members is an important goal for almost all community organizations and mainstream religious groups. Likewise, giving away something for free (in this case parking) is a time-honored strategy used to generate attention create interest, and attract new customers.

At most, the City has demonstrated that the Church may have changed its mind over the years regarding the religious implications of its use of its parking lot.... Well respected religious leaders and institutions throughout the world change their minds on certain matters from time to time, and no one would suggest those changes evidence insincere religious beliefs.

Jewish Organization Fails To Prove Violations In Denial of Its Use of Free After-School Space

In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court dismissed claims by a Jewish non-profit organization that the Miami-Dade County School Board and the County's Office of Inspector General (OIG) violated its 1st and 14th Amendment rights when it took away its rent free use of school facilities for after-school programs. The OIG, after investigating an anonymous complaint, claimed that Chabad Chayil violated various regulations in applying for rent-free use and in operating its program. The court concluded that Chabad Chayil had failed to show that its claims met the requirements for liability under 42 USC §1983. It "failed to allege facts showing that any School Board official or staff member was a final policymaker with respect to the decisions or actions that Chabad Chayil maintains were unconstitutional...." It failed to show a OIG custom or policy that would make it liable for free exercise violations. Chabad Chayil also failed to prove equal protection or due process violations.

Suit By Fired Parish Office Manager Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Napolitano v. St. Joseph Catholic Church, (FL App., Dec. 18, 2020), a Florida state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a church parish's office manager. At issue was whether a new parish priest could fire the office manager after the prior priest, just before his ouster, had on behalf of the parish entered a 4-year contract with the office manager. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

At the heart of the dispute between Napolitano and the Church Defendants is whether Father Brown had the authority under Canon Law to obligate successor administrations of St. Joseph to retain his chosen employees. Simply put, Napolitano has requested that a secular court examine a hierarchical religious organization and determine who has the authority to speak and act on its behalf. Whether based on actual or apparent authority, Napolitano’s request would require a court to impermissibly wade into ecclesiastical polity, in violation of the First Amendment....

Whether Father Brown had the actual or apparent authority to form the employment agreement and bind St. Joseph and the Diocese, even after his removal, is a quintessentially religious controversy—one that would require judicial inquiry into internal church matters—and constitutes a subject matter of which secular courts lack jurisdiction.

11th Circuit Strikes Down Conversion Therapy Ban

 In Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, (11th Cir., Nov. 20, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down city and county ordinances in Florida that ban therapists from engaging in counseling or therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation, reducing a minor’s sexual or romantic attractions, or changing a minor’s gender identity or expression. Support to minors undergoing gender transition, however is permitted. The majority said in part:

We understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial. But the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech. We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny...

This decision allows speech that many find concerning—even dangerous. But consider the alternative. If the speech restrictions in these ordinances can stand, then so can their inverse. Local communities could prevent therapists from validating a client’s same-sex attractions if the city council deemed that message harmful.... People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about these matters—on all sides. And that is exactly why the First Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.

Judge Martin, dissenting, said in part:

The majority is correct to say this case implicates sensitive considerations about when and how government bodies may regulate speech. Instances in which a speech restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest are deservedly rare. But they do exist.... I believe the Localities’ narrow regulation of a harmful medical practice affecting vulnerable minors falls within the narrow band of permissibility.

Palm Beach Post reports on the decision.

University Student Government Court Orders Reinstatement of Student Senate President Ousted For Religious Views

 In a 19-page decision, the Florida State University Student Supreme Court held that a Catholic student who had been removed as Student Senate president because of religious views he expressed criticizing Black Lives Matter, the ACLU and Reclaim the Block as taking views opposed to Catholic teachings. The decision in Denton v. Daraldik, (FL Student Sup. Ct., Oct. 26, 2020), ordering plaintiff's reinstatement as Student Senate president, said in part:

Plaintiff was acting in his capacity as a private citizen when he made the statements for which he was removed. Plaintiff sent messages in the CSU group chat. The Catholic Student Union, while funded by SGA, operates to promote the teachings of the Catholic Church.... 

The Senates treatment of Plaintiff’s case violated its obligation under the First Amendment not to take action that is hostile to a religion or religious viewpoint. The Senators’ during debate reveal that they were neither tolerant nor respectful of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs when they held their vote of no-confidence. Here, as in Masterpiece, Plaintiff was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his sincerely held religious beliefs. The Senate did not act as a neutral decisionmaker in this case.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Student Senate President Who Was Removed For His Religious Views Gets Limited Relief

In Denton v. Thrasher, (ND FL, Oct. 8, 2020), a Florida federal district court held that Florida State University's Student Senate acted unconstitutionally when it removed Jack Denton as Student Senate president. (He remained a member of the Senate.)  Student Senate took the action after Denton's private chat room comments were publicly circulated.  The offending remarks were:

BlackLivesMatter.com fosters “a queer-affirming network” and defends transgenderism. The ACLU defends laws protecting abortion facilities and sued states that restrict access to abortion. Reclaim the Block claims less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting PDs’ budgets. This is a little less explicit, but I think it’s contrary to the Church’s teaching on the common good....

I don’t mean to anger anyone – I know this is a very emotional topic. However, it is important to know what you’re supporting when you’re Catholic. If I stay silent while my brothers and sisters may be supporting an organization that promotes grave evils, I have sinned through my silence. I love you all, and I want us all to be aware of the truth. As far as it’s a religious issue or not, there isn’t an aspect of our lives that isn’t religious, because God wants our whole lives and everything we do to be oriented around him!

The court said in part:

Denton is not here to complain about insults or hurt feelings. His claim is that he lost his job—his student government position—because he chose to exercise his First Amendment rights.

The court however limited its relief to an order that Denton be paid for the six hours per week for the rest of the term that he would have served as Student Senate president. It refused to order that Denton be reinstated to his position since that could produce "tumult and chaos."  Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

11th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Case of Religious Statement By Juror

As reported by Florida News Service, yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review (full text of order) in United States v. Corrine Brown. In the case, a 3-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a juror in the fraud case of former Florida representative Corrine Brown. At issue was a statement made by one of the jurors during deliberations that "A Higher Being told me Corrine Brown was Not Guilty on all charges." (See prior posting.)

Catholic Student Sues After He Is Removed As University Student Senate President Because of His Views

Suit was filed this week in Florida federal district court claiming that plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when he was removed as president of Florida State University's Student Senate.  The complaint (full text) in Denton v. Thrasher, (ND FL, filed 8/31/2020), alleges in part:

Mr. Denton is a devout Catholic, and he expressed basic Catholic teachings to other Catholic students in a private group chat. But, because Catholic teachings have implications for some social issues that some consider offensive, those messages were shared, student outrage was fomented, and the Student Senate implemented an ad hoc religious test for office: no one with Mr. Denton’s beliefs can hold a leadership position in our Student Senate (even if they only talk about those beliefs in private)....

The complaint describes the contents of plaintiff's group chat with members of the Catholic Student Union:

One student shared a link to a video on YouTube that raised advertising and donation revenue for several organizations.... Mr. Denton observed that, “The various funds on that list are fine causes as far as I know, but everyone should be aware that BlackLivesMatter.com, Reclaim the Block, and the ACLU all advocate for things that are explicitly anti-Catholic.” ... “BlackLivesMatter.com fosters ‘a queer-affirming network’ and defends transgenderism. The ACLU defends laws protecting abortion facilities and sued states that restrict access to abortion. Reclaim the Block claims less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting PDs’ budgets. This is a little less explicit, but I think it’s contrary to the Church’s teaching on the common good.”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

11th Circuit Invalidates School's Rule On Transgender Bathroom Assignments

 In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Aug. 7, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote held that a Florida high school's policy that prevented a transgender male from using the boy's bathroom violates the Equal Protection Clause as well as Title IX. The court said in part:

[W]e assume the government may promote its interest in protecting privacy by maintaining separate bathrooms for boys and girls or men and women. Mr. Adams, for his part, does not question the ubiquitous societal practice of separate bathrooms for men and women. Instead, Mr. Adams argues the School Board’s bathroom policy singles him out for differential treatment on the basis of his gender nonconformity and without furthering student privacy whatsoever. The record before us has persuaded us to his view.

The majority noted that the school relies on the student's sex designation on school enrollment forms, and not on their birth certificates. The majority went on:

 A public school may not punish its students for gender nonconformity. Neither may a public school harm transgender students by establishing arbitrary, separate rules for their restroom use. The evidence at trial confirms that Mr. Adams suffered both these indignities.

Chief Judge Pryor dissented, saying in part:

By failing to address head-on the lawfulness of sex-separated bathrooms in schools, the majority recasts the school policy as classifying students on the basis of transgender status. And based on this recasting, it reaches the remarkable conclusion that schoolchildren have no sex-specific privacy interests when using the bathroom. The majority opinion purports to allow only plaintiff Drew Adams, a female who identifies as a male, to use the boys’ bathroom, but the logic of this decision would require all schoolchildren to use sex-neutral bathrooms.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Claims Mask Requirement At Church Services Violates Free Exercise Protections

 A suit filed last week in a Florida state trial court contends that a Florida county's COVID-19 face covering requirement violates, among other things, the free exercise rights of plaintiff, a pastor.  The complaint (full text) in Tillis v. Manatee County, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/2/2020) contends that the mask requirement violates the state constitution's free exercise clause, as well as the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it:

requires both clergy members like Plaintiff and churchgoers to wear masks during service or face government civil fines and punishment.... [T]he requirement to wear a mask ... infringes upon the free exercise of Plaintiff's religion by making it more difficult for him to preach and for members of the choir at his church to sing.

The Conversation reports on the lawsuit.