IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC Westgate Tabernacle Petitioners, vs. 4 th DCA CASE No. 4D PALM BEACH COUNTY, Respondent. RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Robert Banks, Senior Assistant County Attorney 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida Attorneys for Respondent PALM BEACH COUNTY

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii EXPLANATORY NOTES... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 1 ARGUMENT I. THERE IS NO EXPRESS OR DIRECT CONFLICT... 2 II. THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE THAT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL... 4 CONCLUSION... 4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE... 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 5 i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Florida State Cases Cited Abbot v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2001)... 2 Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla 2004)... 3 Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2006)... 3 Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes and Other Authorities Fla. Const. Art. V, 3(b)(3)... 2 Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)... 2,3,4 Ch. 761, Fla. Stat. Religious Freedom Restoration Act U.S.C. 2000cc, et seq. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act... 1 EXPLANATORY NOTES Respondent Palm Beach County will be referred to as County. Petitioners Westgate Tabernacle, et. al., will be referred to collectively as Petitioner. The Fourth District s opinion, which is included as Appendix 1 to Petitioners Jurisdictional Brief, will be referred to as (Opinion at ). ii

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case seeks discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court of an opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal upholding the decision of a jury finding that application of the county land development code to a church s homeless shelter was not a violation of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The appellate court found that imposition of land development requirements to a church activity is not a substantial burden on the exercise of religion and declined to address other issues. The District Court of Appeal denied Petitioner Motions for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc and for Certification in an order which is attached to Petitioners Jurisdictional Brief as Appendix 2. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Petitioner disagrees with the holding of the District Court of Appeal. There is no conflict in the District Court opinion with either of the state court decisions cited by Petitioner. Petitioner also argues conflict based on a federal district court case. Conflict jurisdiction at the Florida Supreme Court cannot be based on conflict with a federal case. There was no question of great public importance certified by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. There is no discretionary jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to consider this case as a question of great public importance. 1

5 ARGUMENT I. THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH ABBOTT V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE OR WARNER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON The Florida Constitution permits the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary conflict jurisdiction only when a lower court's decision expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another District Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law. Fla. Const. Art. V, 3(b)(3); accord Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv). Petitioner cannot show any conflict, let alone express or direct conflict with either of the Florida state cases they allege conflict with the district court opinion. ABBOT V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE Abbot v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2001), holds that it is appropriate for trial court to determine if a local government decision is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest in the context of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, chapter 761, Florida Statutes. In this case the jury found the ULDC the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Opinion at 3. There is no conflict of any sort between Abbot and this case. 2

6 WARNER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla 2004), involved a challenge to a city ordinance that prohibited vertical grave decorations at a municipal cemetery that was certified to the Florida Supreme Court by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the Southern District of Florida that the ordinance did not substantially burden religious beliefs. The District Court in this case defines substantially burden by quoting Warner: The Florida Supreme Court defined this term [substantial burden] for the purposes of FRFRA as one that either compels the religious adherent to engage in conduct that his religion forbids or forbids him to engage in conduct that his religion requires. Warner, 887 So. 2d Opinion at 5. The determination in this case that requiring a special exception to operate a homeless shelter is not a substantial burden is entirely consistent with the determination in Warner that city regulations concerning grave decorations merely inconvenience the practice of religion and are not a substantial burden. Petitioner also cites conflict with a federal district court case, Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Conflict jurisdiction is limited to conflict with another district court of appeal or with the Florida Supreme Court on the same question of law. Fla. R. App. 3

7 P (a)(2)(A)(iv) The federal case cited by Petitioner cannot be the basis for review by the Florida Supreme Court. II. THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE THAT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL The Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(v) to consider cases that are certified to be of great public importance. The district court declined to certify the case as a question of great public importance and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a question. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida Telephone: (561) Facsimile: (561) By: Robert Banks Senior Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No rbanks@pbcgov.org 4

8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that Respondent s Jurisdictional Brief complies with the font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida Telephone: (561) Facsimile: (561) By: Robert Banks Senior Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No rbanks@pbcgov.org CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Respondent s Jurisdictional Brief has been furnished by U. S. Mail to Barry M. Silver, 1200 S. Rogers Circle, Suite B, Boca Raton, Florida this day of October, Robert Banks Florida Bar No