The Ocala City Council voted unanimously to appeal a judge’s decision that a 2014 prayer vigil was an “unconstitutional government endorsement of religion,” with the city’s legal representation advising that it might take another 12 to 24 months and tens of thousands of dollars more to win the case.
The matter came before the council during its regular meeting on Tuesday, July 16. During a presentation by Abigail A. Southerland of the American Center for Law and Justice, the city’s legal representation in the case, the attorney suggested that Ocala had “strong grounds” to appeal a 50-page decision issued in favor of the plaintiffs, Art Rojas and Lucinda Hale, in the Middle District of Florida by United States District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan last month.
Read a recap of Judge Corrigan’s decision here.
Southerland said the ACLJ believes that the city was “arguably less involved” in the prayer vigil than other cities and counties had been in the past and that the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was never intended to “prohibit” a prayer vigil.
As a result, she said the ACLJ believes the court erred in its decision and indicated that the case, if appealed, could possibly be heard by the Supreme Court again.
Southerland also hinted several times at the national impact in appealing the judge’s decision, saying the move could have ramifications across municipalities seeking prayer vigils and similar events across the country.
Alternatively, she said that if the city were to accept the decision, her group would begin negotiating the attorney’s fees owed to the plaintiffs, which they “generously” estimated at around $500,000.
During an hour-long discussion regarding the matter, city council members originally expressed concern over the financial implications and time devoted to the case before ultimately deciding to fall in line with previous decisions on the matter.
“I think the question is, if we’ve incurred $500,000 in legal expenses, what could we incur if we kick the can down the road another three or four years,” said Councilmember Jay Musleh.
Musleh, who is the longest-serving councilmember, said it was his “biggest regret” to not have previously settled the case years ago, suggesting the city “erred” despite having the right motives.
“You did the right thing, but you were in the wrong. Our Constitution provides for the separation of church and state. While not admitting it right now, we have crossed a line that would obligate us to pay this,” said Musleh. “We could have settled this case for $75,000 seven or eight years ago. And we didn’t. It would be my wish that we get this thing settled. If not, we’re just kicking the can down the road.”
Councilmember James “Jim” P. Hilty, Sr., originally agreed, expressing concern over the risk of potentially spending hundreds of thousands of dollars if the city were to lose after continuing the fight.
Councilmember Kristen Dreyer questioned the motives behind moving forward, sarcastically asking if the government would be able to “hold prayer vigils whenever we want” if the city were to win the appeal.
When the council pressed further regarding the estimated plaintiffs fees and a “ballpark” timeline for the case, Southerland expressed that it was “very hard” to pinpoint given the nature and makeup of the court, saying it could take 1 month to 1 year for a decision.
“We’re looking at one year to 18 months,” said Southerland.
Musleh suggested the timeframe was just until “the next decision,” saying he didn’t think the “other side” was ever going away.
Councilmember Ire Bethea said he was really bothered by the possibility of a loss and how much it would “cost the citizens.”
“However, I think we have fought this thing for about ten years and I truly in my heart believe that we have a right to pray and I’m just going to hold firm on that,” said Bethea, Sr.
Council President Barry Mansfield originally said it was a “hard decision,” and that, although he didn’t like “anybody telling me what I can and can’t do,” he didn’t necessarily know that the money was worth it.
“Monetarily speaking, do we have a chance?” said Mansfield, asking both the ACLJ and City Attorney William Sexton to guess a percentage chance of victory in the case.
While Sexton indicated he would “never give that sort of answer,” and Southerland echoed the same, both expressed confidence based on the city’s success “at the Eleventh Circuit [Court] before.” Sexton indicated that if the city were to “prevail at the Eleventh Circuit,” the plaintiffs would have “a bit of reluctance on their part” to proceed.
In 2018, a decision was found in favor of the plaintiffs using the Lemon test, but was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022, which discarded the Lemon test in favor of historical practices. During the meeting, the ACLJ and Sexton cited the case several times as an indicator of possible success on appeal.
As the conversation continued, Mansfield questioned the decision’s impact on the rest of the country, suggesting the political climate was “terrible” concerning “anything with prayer.”
“If we won, how does that affect anything at all in any of the other cities or is this just a blip on the radar,” said Mansfield.
In response, Southerland suggested it would be “very concerning” to leave this decision on the books and “unchallenged.” She indicated that several private citizens have reached out to ACLJ to indicate that they took the “primary role” in organizing and planning the prayer vigil.
After additional discussion, Mansfield asked Ocala Police Chief Mike Balken to share his thoughts on the case.
Balken, who wasn’t directly involved in organizing the event, said he remembered dealing with the shootings leading up to the prayer vigil in September 2014. Balken said the community had a “tremendous amount of violence” and that arrests and community outreach were not helping.
“We weren’t talking our way or mentoring our way out of [that],” said Balken of the department’s position at the time.
Balken said that leaders in law enforcement “like to see these things go all the way up to the Supreme Court” in order to “reset the standard” for what local governments and law enforcement officials can and cannot do.
“I think it is impactful to a lot of people around this country…I think, by God, some things are worth fighting for,” said Balken.
After the chief’s remarks, and additional remarks made by former Mayor Kent Guinn, most of the councilmembers changed their tune and Hilty made a motion to pursue the appeal.
Dreyer stated that if the city had the same “conviction today” as it did back then, there was no reason its position would change. She estimated that the cost of the entire lawsuit was “$10 per citizen” and said she believed a “lot of people” would be okay with spending that money to continue the fight.
The vote to continue with the appeal was unanimous, with Musleh indicating that he would not be the lone dissenter before issuing the final vote.
The decision to appeal comes just weeks after Corrigan stated that “the city conceived, organized, promoted, and conducted the prayer vigil” and, in doing so, “violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
Read a recap of Judge Corrigan’s decision here.
If the city is successful in its appeal, the plaintiffs will bear the burden of paying attorney’s fees. If it loses, the city will likely have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs.
Do you think the city should continue its pursuit of the lawsuit, or do you think it should settle and move forward from the case? Share your thoughts in a comment or a letter to the editor.