Title: Chamberlin v. Dade County Bd. of Pub. Instruction

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

171 So. 2d 535 (1965)
Harlow CHAMBERLIN, on his own behalf and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Appellant,
v.
The DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION et al., Appellees,
v.
David HUME et al., intervening appellees.
Edward RESNICK, Philip Stern and Elsie Thorner, in their own behalf and in Behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Appellants,
v.
The DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION et al., Appellees,
v.
David HUME et al., Intervening Appellees.
Nos. 31545, 31546.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 10, 1965.
*536 Howard W. Dixon, Miami, Herbert L. Heiken, Miami Beach, and Tobias Simon, Miami, for Harlow Chamberlin.
Smith & Mandler, Miami Beach, and Leo Pfeffer, New York City, for Edward Resnick, and others.
Bolles & Prunty, Miami, for the Dade County Board of Public Instruction and others.
Brigham, Smith & Brigham and E.F.P. Brigham, Miami, for David Hume and others, intervening appellees.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. Odum, Asst. Atty. Gen., amicus curiae.
CALDWELL, Justice.
These causes came to this court upon direct appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County which construed controlling provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. Our judgment, rendered June 6, 1962, was vacated on appeal by the Supreme Court of the United States[1] and remanded for further consideration in the light of the Murray and the Schempp cases[2] decided June 17, 1963. This Court, having considered the Murray and Schempp cases, supra, all justices concurring, rendered, January 29, 1964, the following judgment:[3]
The foregoing judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States where, for the second time, the court denied counsel the privilege of filing briefs and arguing the cause. The judgment was reversed in this language:[4]
"The motion to use the record in No. 520, October Term 1962, 374 U.S. 487, 83 S. Ct. 1864, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1043, is granted. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed with respect to the issues of the constitutionality of prayer and of devotional Bible reading pursuant to a Florida statute, Fla. Stat. (1961) § 231.09, F.S.A., in the public schools of Dade County. School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844. As to the other questions raised, the appeal is dismissed for want of properly presented federal questions. Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U.S. 207, 213-214, 66 S. Ct. 61, 64, 90 L. Ed. 6 [12, 13]."
In our disposition of the matter we would have been grateful for the assistance a considered opinion rationalizing the dissimilar facts would have afforded but, nevertheless, it seems clear the order reversed as to points numbered one and two and sustained our judgment as to points numbered three, four and five. We construe the decision to mean nothing more and no less than that prayer and devotional Bible reading in the public schools pursuant to a statute or as sponsored by the school authorities are violative of the Federal Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
We hold, therefore, that prayer and devotional Bible reading in the public schools of Florida, pursuant to § 231.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., or as sponsored by the school authorities, are violative of constitutional restraint and, in all other respects, we reaffirm the judgment of this court in these causes filed January 29, 1964, supra.
DREW, C.J., THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., and SMITH, Circuit Judge, concur.
[1]  374 U.S. 487, 83 S. Ct. 1864, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1963).
[2]  School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963).
[3]  160 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1964).
[4]  377 U.S. 402, 84 S. Ct. 1272, 12 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1964).