Council for Secular Humanism, Inc. v. McNeil

District Court of Appeal of Florida
44 So. 3d 112 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, the "no-aid" provision, is not limited to the educational context and prohibits the use of public funds for social service programs run by sectarian institutions if those programs advance religion. A determination of whether a program advances religion requires a case-by-case factual inquiry.

Facts:

The Florida Department of Corrections, led by Secretary Walter A. McNeil, contracted with Prisoners of Christ, Inc. (Prisoners) and Lamb of God Ministries, Inc. (Lamb of God) to provide faith-based substance abuse transitional housing programs for post-release inmates.
Under the contracts, the state paid the ministries $20 per day for each prisoner assigned to their programs.
Prisoners of Christ, Inc. and Lamb of God Ministries, Inc. are self-described 'ministries' and are alleged by the plaintiffs to be sectarian religious institutions.
The programs provided by these ministries allegedly included the teaching of Christian doctrine and encouraged participants 'to change their character by faith in Jesus Christ and other Christian doctrines.'
Prisoners of Christ, Inc. is a member of the Coalition of Prison Evangelists.
Lamb of God Ministries, Inc. partners with the Church in the Woods at Freedom Ranch, a Christian church.
The governing Florida statutes require the Department of Corrections to consider qualified faith-based service groups on an equal basis with other private organizations for such contracts.
The statutes also state that a program must not attempt to convert an offender toward a particular faith or religious preference.

Procedural Posture:

The Council for Secular Humanism, Inc., Richard Hull, and Elaine Hull filed an amended petition in a Florida trial court against Walter A. McNeil, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and two faith-based service providers.
The petition sought to prohibit the use of state funds for the faith-based programs, alleging violations of the 'no-aid' provision in Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution.
The defendants (appellees) moved for a judgment on the pleadings.
The trial court granted a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants on all counts, finding the no-aid provision was limited to the school context.
The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits the use of public funds 'in aid of any sectarian institution,' bar the Florida Department of Corrections from funding faith-based substance abuse transitional housing programs?

Opinions:

Majority - Van Nortwick, J.

Yes, if the government-funded program also advances religion. The Florida Constitution's 'no-aid' provision is not limited to the school context and imposes stricter limitations on state involvement with religious institutions than the federal Establishment Clause. While the provision does not create a per se bar to the state contracting with faith-based institutions for social services, it is violated if the program itself is used to promote religion, is significantly sectarian, involves religious indoctrination, or requires participation in religious ritual. The court relies on its precedent in Bush v. Holmes, which established that the no-aid provision broadly prohibits the use of public funds to aid any sectarian institution. Because the plaintiffs alleged that the programs were sectarian in nature and promoted Christian doctrine, they stated a valid cause of action, and the case must be remanded for a factual determination under this standard.

Dissenting - Thomas, J.

No. The state's funding of these programs does not violate the no-aid provision because the state is contracting for a necessary public service and receiving a legitimate 'quid pro quo.' The majority's reliance on Bush v. Holmes is misplaced because that case was wrongly decided and incorrectly defined 'aid' to include any payment to a religious provider, regardless of the value received in return. The correct inquiry should be whether the 'quantum of benefit' received by the institution reaches the threshold of aid, meaning a subsidy, rather than fair payment for services. Under established Florida Supreme Court precedent, an incidental benefit to a religious group resulting from a state action that promotes the general welfare is constitutional. The majority's decision jeopardizes a wide range of beneficial government social welfare programs operated by faith-based providers.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the application of Florida's strict 'no-aid' provision beyond the school-voucher context to general social service contracting. It establishes that simply receiving fair market value for a secular service is not a sufficient defense for a religious organization; the nature of the program itself will be scrutinized. This ruling creates a new, fact-intensive inquiry for courts, forcing them to determine whether a state-funded program 'advances religion.' The decision increases legal uncertainty for numerous faith-based organizations that partner with the state to provide social services and sets a precedent that could be influential in other states with similarly worded constitutional provisions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Council for Secular Humanism, Inc. v. McNeil (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"