Lexplug logoLexplug

Department of Educ. v. Lewis

Supreme Court of Florida
416 So.2d 455 (1982)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A legislative provision attached to a general appropriations bill is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution if it attempts to enact substantive public policy unrelated to the appropriation. Furthermore, the state may not use its funding power to suppress disfavored speech at public educational institutions, as this violates the First Amendment.


Facts:

  • The Florida Legislature passed House Bill No. 30-B, the general appropriations bill for 1981.
  • Attached to the appropriations for the Department of Education was a proviso.
  • The proviso stated that no state funds could be used to finance any postsecondary educational institution that gives official recognition, assistance, or meeting facilities to any group that 'recommends or advocates sexual relations between persons not married to each other.'
  • The proviso mandated that any institution found in violation would have all its state funds withheld until it was in compliance.
  • It further stipulated that no state financial aid would be given to students enrolled at an institution found to be in violation.
  • Ralph D. Turlington was the Commissioner of Education.
  • Talbot D'Alemberte was a citizen, taxpayer, and trustee of Miami-Dade Community College.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Florida Department of Education, State Board of Education, and Commissioner Ralph D. Turlington filed a complaint in a state trial court seeking a declaratory judgment that the proviso was unconstitutional.
  • Comptroller Gerald Lewis and Secretary of State George Firestone were named as defendants.
  • Talbot D'Alemberte, a taxpayer, was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff.
  • The trial court found the plaintiffs had standing and granted judgment for the defendants, upholding the proviso's constitutionality.
  • The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal, First District.
  • The District Court of Appeal certified the case as one of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

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 a proviso in a general appropriations bill that withholds state funds from educational institutions recognizing groups which advocate sexual relations between unmarried persons violate either Article III, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution's single-subject rule for appropriations or the free speech protections of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Boyd

Yes, the proviso is unconstitutional on both grounds. First, it violates Article III, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution because it enacts substantive policy on a subject other than appropriations. Applying the test from Brown v. Firestone, the court found the proviso changes existing law regarding the governance of educational institutions and is not directly and rationally related to the purpose of funding education; rather, it is a device to further an unrelated legislative objective. Second, the proviso violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, and once the state has opened a forum like a university campus for expression, it cannot prohibit groups from speaking based on the content of their message, even if that message is considered abhorrent by the majority. Withholding funds is a form of subtle governmental interference that unconstitutionally stifles speech and association.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the constitutional barrier against 'logrolling' in Florida, preventing the legislature from embedding substantive policy changes within essential, must-pass appropriations bills. It strictly enforces the state constitution's single-subject rule for such legislation, ensuring that policy matters receive their own dedicated debate. The ruling also strongly reaffirms that public university campuses are protected forums for free expression, establishing that the state cannot use its fiscal power as a tool for censorship or to compel ideological conformity among student organizations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Department of Educ. v. Lewis (1982) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Department of Educ. v. Lewis