A panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's dismissal, ruling that the Council of Secular Humanism can challenge a faith-based prison program on the basis of the state constitution's "no aid to religion" provision.
The no-aid provision says no revenue of the state or local governments can be used to directly or indirectly aid churches or other sectarian institutions.
The state argued the programs are social services that are permitted under the no-aid provision even if the organizations providing them are sectarian institutions. The Council for Secular Humanism contends the programs are unconstitutional because they are carried out by teaching Christian doctrines to encourage inmates to change their character.
You can read the unanimous decision here. Key excerpts are in the extended post below.
A panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's dismissal, ruling that the Council of Secular Humanism can challenge a faith-based prison program on the basis of the state constitution's "no aid to religion" provision.
The no-aid provision says no revenue of the state or local governments can be used to directly or indirectly aid churches or other sectarian institutions.
The state argued the programs are social services that are permitted under the no-aid provision even if the organizations providing them are sectarian institutions. The Council for Secular Humanism contends the programs are unconstitutional because they are carried out by teaching Christian doctrines to encourage inmates to change their character.
You can read the unanimous decision here. Key excerpts are in the extended post below.
Appellees assert that, even if Prisoners and Lamb of God are considered sectarian institutions, paying them to provide social services to inmates under the programs does not violate the no-aid provision. We agree that Florida’s no-aid provision does not create a per se bar to the state providing funds to religious or faith-based institutions to furnish social services. . . . The inquiry here is whether the programs funded by sections 944.473 and 944.4731 and provided by Prisoners and Lamb of God are predominantly religious in nature and whether the programs promote the religious mission of the organizations receiving the funds. The appellants allege that not only are Prisoners and Lamb of God sectarian institutions, but the programs themselves are fundamentally carried out in a sectarian manner in violation of Article I, section 3. As we stated above, at this stage of the proceedings, we must take as true the material allegations plead in the petition and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom. Martinez, 863 So. 2d at 1205. It is only after the facts are developed with respect to the purpose and effect of the faith-based programs which are the subject of this action that these arguments can be addressed definitively.
…
Appellees also argue that, if the no-aid provision bars religious entities from participating in state contracting, it would violate the Federal Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. This argument was rejected in Holmes I. … [T]he United States Supreme Court has recognized that a state constitutional provision, like Florida’s no-aid provision, can bar state financial aid to religious institutions without violating either the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause. Locke, 540 U.S. at 725. As the Court explained, “there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause,” id. at 719, and states are free to “draw[ ] a more stringent line than drawn by the United States Constitution. . . .”
