The First Amendment contains the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause which are put in place to work together to protect individual rights regarding religion. However, at times these two clauses cause conflict in certain cases which usually involves the practice of religion in public spaces. The Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association case is an example of how the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause can lead to disagreements.
Prior to suing FHSAA, there was a letter from CCS to FHSAA on January 26, 2016 claiming that their rights were violated. The board meeting occurred on September 26, 2016 and many concerned parents and teachers attended. They requested for the FHSAA to adopt a policy that would allow for religious freedom for students in Florida. However, FHSAA denied their proposition which then led to the CSS filing a lawsuit against FHSAA. In February 2017 a Tampa district magistrate issued a “report and recommendation” which claimed that at the Citrus Bowl two Christian schools can not pray over the loudspeaker. CCS then appealed this ruling as they still felt this was unconstitutional. In November 2019 the Court of Appeals ruled that CCS’s argument that its free speech and free exercise rights were violated and they should proceed. However in 2022, the US district court ruled that the Christian schools can not recite a prayer over the loudspeaker. The CCS appealed requesting for the lower court's decision to be reversed.
This court case revolves on the interpretations and application of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. CCS believed that it was a violation of their free exercise of religion and speech. They believed that the First Amendment was being applied unjustly and one of the attorneys believes this is an ongoing issue. He states “For far too long the Establishment Clause has been used by government agencies and actors to suppress and punish religious liberty whenever it came into the public square.” They also emphasized that the First Amendment should protect prayer from censorship. Another argument they made was that it is protected for “religious schools to be able to be religious schools” in public spaces. On the opposing side, the FHSAA argued that if they were to allow the prayer to be said over the loudspeaker it would have been a violation of the Establishment Clause because this would not be a separation between religion and government. They also argued that this can be seen as a form of coercion which is forbidden by the First Amendment especially when it comes to young children. They also argued that they did not discriminate against religious messages. Another point they make is that religious groups are not allowed to receive privileges that others can not have. If they were to allow the prayer they would be favoring religion over non religion.
Sources:
https://firstliberty.org/cases/cambridge/#simple1
https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/cambridge-christian-school-v-florida-high-school-athletic-association/
https://republicsentinel.com/articles/christian-school-battles-in-court-after-florida-athletic-authority-bans-prayer-before-football-game
Hi Kayla,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting and compelling case. I agree with your analysis of this case. I believe that the school was not prohibited to exercise their religion. It is not a religious belief that the prayer must be said over the loudspeaker. I agree with the FHSAA allowing the prayer to be recited over the loudspeaker would violate the Establishment clause. Since the game was being played on public grounds, there is an area of conflict when asked to recite religious prayers using publically funded equipment. I agree with your analysis, but I also see the other side of this argument.
Kayla,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting story. This situation hits particularly close to home as I attended Catholic school as a child, where we prayed before every sports practice and game. Despite my background, and sympathy toward the Christian schools on their desire to pray, the FHSAA's policy was one of neutrality. Since no party is allowed to use the loudspeaker, for any purpose, the FHSSAA's denial of prayers on the loudspeaker is not discriminatory or exclusionary. Furthermore, as Kendall also mentions, the high schools are still entitled to pray before the game. There are no policies prohibiting prayer inside the locker rooms or on the sidelines of the field. For these reasons, I agree with your stance that the prohibition of prayer on the loud speaker is not a violation of religious freedoms, particularly considering that the loud speaker is off-limits to all teams.
Kayla,
ReplyDeleteThis was an extremely interesting case to read about! It’s interesting that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause are coming into direct conflict here. I agree with your holding. I believe that the FHSAA is emphasizing the neutrality embedded in their policies. Simply put, religious groups may not have privileges over non-religious groups. In general, nobody is allowed to use the loudspeaker. Therefore, according to the policies of FHSAA, if anyone were to approach them asking to use their piece of equipment, they would be rejected. I can understand why these teams would be deeply offended by being rejected of their pre-game ritual of stating a prayer over the loudspeaker, but this does not stop them from praying in other manner. Also, being offended does not constitute constitutionality.
Great post!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKayla, I really enjoyed reading your post. You did a great job describing both the facts of the case and your subsequent argument. I agree that since nobody is allowed to use the loudspeaker, permitting Cambridge Christian School to use it to recite their prayer would privilege religion over non-religion. When applying the Lemon test to this case, by allowing CCS to carry out their prayer on the loudspeaker, the second and third prongs of the test are clearly violated. The assistance granted to the religious needs of the CCS would serve as a promotion of religion at a state-organized event, which could produce an excessive entanglement between church and state. Additionally, if the FHSAA allowed CCS to recite their prayer, they would then also have to grant other religious schools usage of the loudspeaker in the future, which would only open the floodgates to an even greater entanglement between church and state.
ReplyDeleteHi Kayla,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post! This is a complicated issue that really shows how the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause can conflict with one another. I agree with you that the FHSAA did not violate the free exercise rights of the Christian schools. It’s clear from their policy that no one is allowed to use the loudspeaker for any purpose; thus, they are being neutral and non-discriminatory. I also like your point about how religion should not receive special privilege over non-religion. Although religious liberty is a constitutional right, it does not mean that religious individuals deserve special treatment, only that they have the freedom to practice as they choose. I’m sure it varies from case to case, but this situation makes me wonder which of the religious clauses of the First Amendment the courts would prioritize.
Hi Kayla,
ReplyDeleteThis was a greatly formed post. I definitely agree with your analysis stating that this wasn't a violation of CSS's freedom of exercise. By allowing no religion to pray prior to a game is an extremely neutral law, both at face value and, in my opinion, looking at this more analytically. Similar to some of the comments above, it is true that the school did not say they cannot pray at all, they simply did not allow this to be done over the loudspeaker out of fear of coercive tendencies. This does not affect the team as they have the ability to pray as a team without audience members or the opposing team to forcefully have to listen to their beliefs, regardless of whether they believe in them or not. Additionally, this occurs on publicly funded grounds, not at a private institution. I believe if this occurred at a private institution, the outcome could potentially be different.
This is cool post with a topic I find very interesting and applicable to so many people. I have grown up with some sports teams I have played for where the coach has said a quick prayer and nobody ever thought twice about it. So I find this very interesting to see the legal side of it. Im going to agree with your argument that there was a violation of CSS's freedom of exercise. Since it is a public ground and there is no physical harm being done I don't see a true outstanding issue to warrant a violation. As we have also learned just because your offended or feelings are hurt it is not deemed unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree that allowing Cambridge Christian School to use the loudspeaker to recite their prayer will elevate religion above the non-religious because nobody seemed to be permitted to use it. I agree with Bella that if the Lemon test is to be applied to this case, that the second and third prongs of the test have been broken by permitting CCS to do their prayer over the loudspeaker. Giving in to the CCS's religious needs would certainly amount to promoting religion at a state-sponsored function, potentially leading to an undue level of church-state interference. This was an interesting case, and I think it has important implications for the separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteKayla,
ReplyDeleteLike those before me, I agree with your analysis of the case. I found that you represented each side in an unbiased approach, which helps us as the readers to create our own opinion. I believe that because the Florida High School Athletic Association is a government agency that represents both secular and non-secular school districts, there should be no involvement with religion. On their home field? Sure, but when the FHSAA is hosting? No. Like you mentioned, this could be partaken as a form of coercion, which violates the First Amendment establishment clause.