9 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 8
ALLIANCE DlifliNDING 

FREEDOM FOR FAITH. FOR JUUIC1 

July 22, 2020 

Dr. Amy Hecht, Vice President for Student Affairs 

Florida State University 

313 Westcott Building 

Tallahassee FL, 32306-1340 

Sent via E-mail to ahecht@fsu.edu 

Dear Dr. Hecht, 

I wrote to you on July 2 notifying you of Mr. Denton's complaint to the Student 

Supreme Court filed on June 18. At that time, no representative of the Student 

Supreme Court had taken notice of Mr. Denton's appeal and the Student Senate had 

not confirmed the nominees for temporary justices forwarded to it by the Student 

Body President on June 24. Since that time, the Student Senate refused to confirm a 

temporary chief justice prior to the conclusion of its regular session, effectively 

preventing Mr. Denton's case from being heard. 

The Student Senate's actions in the time since my initial letter have 

demonstrated that it refused to confirm a temporary chief justice for the purpose of 

derailing Mr. Denton's complaint. After the Student Body President forwarded his 

nominees to the Student Senate, the Student Senate deviated from the procedure 

specified in Student Body Statute § 510(C)(2), which provides that nominations for 

temporary justices "shall go directly to the floor at the earliest summer session of the 

Student Senate." On July 8, the Student Senate referred Abby Salter's nomination to 

the Judiciary Committee instead of giving her an up or down vote on the Student 

Senate floor as required by Section 510(C)(2). The Student Senate's referral of Ms. 

Salter's nomination to the Judiciary Committee caused additional delay, ultimately 

preventing her confirmation. 

At the Judiciary Committee hearing on July 14, Senators vetted Ms. Salter 

with Mr. Denton's case in mind, asking whether she was aware of his case, how she 

would have ruled as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of 

Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County, and inquiring about her 

"education ... in regard to the LGBTQ+ community" and how she planned "to 

educate" herself "on this community." 1 Senator Gnanam was unsatisfied with Ms. 

1 Hearing before the Judiciary Committee, 72nd Student Senate 2-3 (July 14, 2020) available at 

http ://sga.fsu.edu/com m ittee-min utes/su m rner20/J udiciary-Committ.ee 7 .14. 20.pclf (accessed July 21, 

2020). 

20116 Ashbrook Place Suite 250, Ashburn, VA 20147 Phone: 571.707.4655 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 8
Dr. Amy Hecht 

July 22, 2020 

Page 2 

Salter's answers. Senator Gnanam said of Ms. Salter, "Her limited knowledge [of the 

LGBTQ+ community] is very concerning and frustrating. Since there is such a 

sensitive case on the docket it is very concerning what the repercussion of this could 

be. I don't feel comfortable having her preside over this case."2 

While the Judiciary Committee ultimately reported Ms. Salter's nomination 

back to the Student Senate, the Student Senate refused to act on her nomination, 

even opening the calendar at its final meeting on July 15 in order to consider 

resolutions . rather than confirmations. After the Student Senate considered 

resolutions, it adjourned without voting on Ms. Salter's nomination. No judicial 

nominations can be considered until the 73rd Student Senate begins its session in 

September, and there is no way to predict how long it will take for a duly-constituted 

Student Supreme Court to convene. The Student Senate's actions have therefore 

prevented Mr. Denton's case from being considered before his term as Student Senate 

President would have expired, had he not been removed through a vote of noconfidence that violated Student Senate rules, Student Body Statutes, and federal 

law. 

The Student Senate's refusal to seat a Court that could hear Mr. Denton's 

complaint, with the apparent purpose of thwarting his complaint, amounts to a 

decision denying his complaint. Consequently, Mr. Denton is hereby appealing the 

denial of his complaint to you under Student Supreme Court Rule 3.8. The substance 

of Mr. Denton's appeal is attached. 

Please inform us by July 29, 2020 whether you take notice of this appeal and, 

if so, when you will hold a hearing to consider the appeal. 

Enclosure 

2 Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

s!Tyson C. Langhofer 

Tyson C. Langhofer 

tlanghofe1@ADFlegal.org 

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 

20116 Ashbrook Pl., Suite 250 

Ashburn, VA 20147 

Exhibit 9, Page 002 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 8
DATE: July 22, 2020 

TO: Dr. Amy Hecht 

FROM: Jack Denton 

RE: Appeal of denial of complaint to FSU Student Supreme Court 

INTRODUCTION 

On June 18, 2020, I filed a complaint with the Student Supreme Court invoking 

the Student Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article IV of the Student 

Body Constitution. The Student Senate's actions have prevented the Court from 

hearing my complaint and amount to a denial of my complaint. Therefore, I submit 

this administrative appeal under Student Supreme Court Rule 3.8. 

I. Factual Background 

I am a Catholic student at FSU and I was the SGA Student Senate President. 

In a private text conversation with other Catholic students, one student shared a link 

to a video that raises ad revenue for a number of organizations. Wanting the group 

to be aware of what they might be supporting financially, I sent a message saying, 

"The various funds on that list are fine causes as far as I know, but 

everyone should be aware that BlackLivesMatter.com, Reclaim the 

Block, and the ACLU all advocate for things that are explicitly antiCatholic." 

When others asked for more details, I explained, 

"BlackLivesMatter.com fosters 'a queer affirming network' and defends 

transgenderism. The ACLU defends laws protecting abortion facilities 

and sued states that restrict access to abortion. Reclaim the block claims 

less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting 

PD's budgets. This is a little less explicit, but I think it's contrary to the 

Church's teaching on the common good." 

I sent one more message, which said, 

"I don't mean to anger anyone - I know this is a very emotional topic. 

However, it is important to know what you're supporting when you're 

Catholic. If I stay silent while my brothers and sisters may be 

supporting an organization that promotes grave evils, I have sinned 

through my silence. I love you all, and I want us all to be aware of the 

truth. As far as [whether] it's a religious issue or not, there isn't an 

aspect of our lives that isn't religious, because God wants our whole lives 

and everything we do to be oriented around him!<3" 

1 

Exhibit 9, Page 003 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 8
One student took screenshots of my messages and shared them with other 

students, including members of the Student Senate. Many students (including SGA 

officials) shared my remarks on social media, calling me "transphobic," "racist," and 

much else. In response to calls for my removal as Student Senate President, the 

Student Senate held a vote of no-confidence on June 3, 2020. The vote was 21 in favor 

to 16 against, short of the two-thirds majority required to remove me. In response to 

intensifying pressure to remove me, the Student Senate reconvened on June 5, 2020. 

At that meeting, Senator Gnanam introduced a second motion of no-confidence. 

President Pro Tempore Daraldik presided over the Senate during the consideration 

of Senator Gnanam's motion. The Student Senate approved the second motion of noconfidence by a margin of 38 in favor, 3 against, and 3 abstentions. The student 

senators who spoke in favor of the motion said explicitly that it was because of my 

beliefs, as communicated in my private texts, that they chose to remove me as 

Student Senate President. 

For example, Senator Gnanam, the proponent of the motion of no-confidence, 

said of my words, "I can think of no more abhorrent thing to hear coming from our 

Senate Leadership and it is time for us to take action." Senator Gnanam said that 

refusing to remove me "would effectively be enabling bigotry." Senator Leckie said, 

"We're living through a time of incredible social change and, now more than ever, we 

need to do something about the issues of our time. So that's why I think we should 

support this motion." Senator Waters said, 

"I strongly believe these statements are anti-black and should not have 

been made. What was said was a clear violation between separation of 

church and state, and it hurt many people in the process. It is important 

for all leaders to be at the tip of the spear driving home diversity and 

inclusion in all walks of life, and that includes our power-wielding 

officials who often hold certain privileges at this university. What 

Denton said should not, and will not, be a representation of who we are. 

Our leaders are public entities and we must demand the utmost of 

decorum from them. This is disgraceful." 

After I was removed from my position, the Student Senate selected Ahmad 

Daraldik to succeed me as Student Senate President. In the days following Mr. 

Daraldik's selection, some of his past comments on social media came to light. 

President Thrasher recognized Mr. Daraldik's comments as "offensive anti-Semitic 

rhetoric" and issued a statement condemning religious discrimination. l The Student 

1 John Thrasher, A message from President John Thrasher: Anti-Semitism and religious 

discrimination, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY NEWS (June 18, 2020) available at 

hLtp ://news.fsu. du/new /university-new /2020/06/18/a.me. age-from·pr sident-john-thrasher-antisemiLism-and-religious-discrimination/ (accessed July 21, 2020). 

2 

Exhibit 9, Page 004 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 8
Senate held a vote on a motion of no-confidence in Mr. Daraldik on June 17, 2020. 

That motion failed by a vote of 19 in favor, 16 against, and 6 abstentions. 

II. Grounds for the Student Supreme Court's Jurisdiction and this 

Appeal 

The Student Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article IV § 3 of the 

Student Body Constitution and Student Body Statute § 500.3(A) because this 

complaint alleges violations of the Student Body Constitution and Statutes and 

involves questions of the constitutionality of actions by student governing groups 

under the Student Body Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. 

The Student Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article IV § 4 of the 

Student Body Constitution and Student Body Statute § 205.5 because this complaint 

alleges violations of the SGA Ethics Code. 

Because the Student Senate's actions rendering the Student Supreme Court 

incapable of hearing my complaint amount to a denial of my complaint, I appeal to 

the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs under Supreme Court Rule 3.8. 

III. Grounds for Relief 

A. Violation of Student Body Statutes 

The Student Senate's decision to remove me as Student Senate President 

violated Student Body Statute § 206.1, which prohibits each "Student Government 

Association officer" and "branch" from practicing "discrimination." Section 206.1 

defines "discrimination" as "differential treatment of a student based on ... religion." 

The senators who voted in support of removing me did so explicitly because of my 

religious views which they learned of from my private text messages. The senators 

did not stop at disagreeing with me or denouncing me publicly - they took concrete 

action against me because of my views. 

In stark contrast, the Student Senate then refused to remove Mr. Daraldik for 

his "offensive anti-Semitic rhetoric." Therefore, the Student Senate cannot claim to 

be applying a neutral standard requiring the Student Senate President to avoid 

"offensive" speech generally. Rather, the Student Senate took action against me 

because it disfavored my religious speech in particular. This is "differential 

treatment" of me based on my religion in violation of section 206.1. 

B. Violation of the SGA Ethics Code 

The SGA Ethics Code is set forth in chapter 205 of the Student Body Statutes. 

Section 205.3(F) provides, "No officer or employee will practice any discrimination as 

defined in the Student Government Association Anti-Discrimination Policy." For the 

reasons described in Part III.A above, the student senators who voted to remove me 

3 

Exhibit 9, Page 005 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 6 of 8
because of my religious views have violated the Ant-Discrimination Policy and, 

therefore, have also violated the SGA Ethics Code. 

C. Violations of Other Constitutional Provisions 

The SGA Ethics Code explicitly requires SGA officers to respect each student's 

"rights guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitution."§ 205.3(F)(l). The Student 

Senate is also a legislative body established by state law. Fla Stat. Ann.§ 1004.26(2). 

The Student Senate's decision to remove me is state action denying me a vested 

benefit in retaliation for my private speech on matters of public concern in violation 

of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Bond u. Floyd, 385 

U.S. 116, 130 (1966). 

My removal as Student Senate President also violated the Student Body 

Constitution because the Senate acted in breach of its own rules and, consequently, 

beyond the scope of its own authority. Student Senate Rule 1.10 prohibits "[m]otions 

of no-confidence ... that would result in violations of the Senate Conduct Code." The 

Senate Conduct Code, set forth in Senate Rule 12.10, requires each member of the 

Senate to "conduct him or herself at all times in a manner . . . free from 

discrimination." Because the basis for the motion of no-confidence in me as Student 

Senate President was discrimination as defined in Student Body Statutes (see supra 

Part III.A.), the motion was improper under Student Senate Rule 1.10, and my 

removal was ultimately beyond the Senate's power in violation of the Student Body 

Constitution. 

IV. Prayer for Relief 

I respectfully request that you find in my favor and grant the following relief: 

A. A declaration that the motion of no-confidence removing me as Student 

Senate President on June 5, 2020 violated my rights under the Student 

Body Constitution, the Student Body Statutes, and the Constitution of 

the United States; 

B. An instruction to the Student Supreme Court to issue a writ of 

mandamus under Article IV§ 3(C)(4) of the Student Body Constitution 

ordering the Student Senate to reinstate me as Student Senate 

President, or such other appropriate action as is necessary to reinstate 

me as Student Senate President; 

C. Compensation for lost wages from June 5, 2020 until the time of my 

reinstatement as Student Senate President; and 

D. Any other such relief as the you may deem appropriate as Vice President 

for Student Affairs. 

4 

Exhibit 9, Page 006 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 7 of 8
Respectfully submitted, 

Is I Jack Denton 

Jack Denton 

jackddenton@gmail.com 

5 

Exhibit 9, Page 007 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-9 Filed 08/31/20 Page 8 of 8