ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA v. City of Lakeland, Fla.
779 F. Supp. 2d 1330
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Atheists of Florida, Inc. and Ellenbeth Wachs sue City of Lakeland and Mayor Fields under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging Establishment Clause, Equal Protection, and Free Speech claims, plus a Florida Establishment Clause claim.
- City uses a list of religious representatives to invite invocation speakers; prior practice relied on Yellow Pages and favored Christian speakers.
- Plaintiffs contact the City in March 2010 seeking a silent moment of reflection; City declines and continues invitational practice.
- Resolution 10-041, enacted August 2, 2010, codifies a new invocation policy with a Congregations List and a disclaimer; months later Plaintiffs amend the complaint.
- Defendants move to dismiss on mootness and substantive grounds; the court declines mootness dismissal and analyzes Counts I–IV.
- Court concludes Counts I and II survive (federal and Florida Establishment), Counts III and IV are dismissed; Fields’ official-capacity claims are dismissed while individual-capacity claims remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after Resolution 10-041 | Resolution mootness defeats relief; change to policy inadequate. | Resolution moots claims; policy change cures constitutional concerns. | Not moot; claims survive. |
| Federal Establishment Clause viability | Prayer policy advances/reinforces Christianity; violates Marsh/Pelphrey. | Policy is within Marsh/Pelphrey framework and neutral. | Plaintiffs' federal Establishment claim plausible; survives. |
| Florida Establishment Clause viability | No-aid/Establishment protections extend state law; Florida clause mirrors federal. | Florida clause duplicative; federal standard governs. | Florida Establishment claim survives due to federal claim. |
| Equal Protection and Free Speech claims | Speech is government speech; discriminatory practice violates constitutional rights. | Establishment Clause controls; EP/FP claims miscast. | Counts III and IV dismissed. |
| Qualified immunity and official-capacity claims against Fields | Fields knowingly enforced unconstitutional practice; cannot enjoy immunity. | Immunity may apply to damages; official-capacity claims duplicative. | Official-capacity claims dismissed; individual-capacity claims remain; qualified-immunity analysis reserved for summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1983) (legislative prayer tradition; deference to prayer practices within limits)
- Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008) (case refining Marsh; examination of selection procedures and inclusivity)
- Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2004) (rebuttable presumption against recurrence by government actors)
- Coral Springs Street Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2004) (mootness and superseding-law considerations in constitutional challenges)
- Nat'l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami (Nat'l Adver. I), 402 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (mootness doctrine; timing of cessation and likelihood of recurrence)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (liability for city policy vs. custom; final policymaker standard)