## Facts

- The Florida Legislature enacted a general appropriations law that included a proviso restricting how appropriated education funds could be used.
- The proviso barred use of state funds for any postsecondary institution that “charters or gives official recognition” to, or assists or provides facilities for, any group that “recommends or advocates sexual relations between persons not married to each other.”
- The proviso required withholding all state funds from an institution found in violation until it returned to compliance and denied state financial aid to students enrolled at an institution in violation.
- The Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Education (in his official capacity and also as a citizen and taxpayer), along with another citizen-taxpayer, sought a declaratory judgment that the proviso was unconstitutional.
- The Comptroller and Secretary of State were sued as state fiscal and executive officers connected to administration of the appropriations law.
- The trial court upheld the proviso; the case reached the Florida Supreme Court on certification of great public importance.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Education, the State Board, and the Commissioner in his official capacity had standing to challenge an appropriations proviso governing execution of their statutory duties.
2. Whether the Commissioner and another individual had standing as citizens and taxpayers to challenge the proviso.
3. Whether the proviso violated constitutional protections for freedom of speech and association by conditioning public funding on suppressing advocacy about sexual relations between unmarried persons.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held the Department of Education, the State Board, and the Commissioner in his official capacity lacked standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute directing their duties.
- The Court held the individual plaintiffs had citizen-taxpayer standing to bring the constitutional challenge.
- On the merits, the Court declared the proviso unconstitutional and void.
- The Court reversed the judgment that had upheld the proviso.

## Legal Principles

- State agencies and officers acting in their official capacities generally may not challenge the constitutionality of statutes that prescribe their duties, including appropriations directives they must administer.
- Citizen-taxpayer standing may exist to challenge alleged unconstitutional restrictions or conditions attached to public expenditures.
- The government may not condition public funding for postsecondary institutions and student aid on the suppression of protected speech or association, including viewpoint-based restrictions targeting what groups “recommend or advocate.”
- A funding condition that penalizes institutions for recognizing or assisting organizations based on the content of their advocacy violates constitutional guarantees of free speech and expressive association.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court invalidated an appropriations proviso that threatened to cut off institutional funding and student financial aid when a postsecondary institution recognized or assisted organizations advocating certain sexual views, holding the restriction unconstitutional as a content- and viewpoint-based funding condition; although the education agencies lacked standing, the individual citizen-taxpayers could sue.


Dep’t of Educ. v. Lewis, 416 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1982)