# Connell v. Higginbotham > District Court, M.D. Florida · October 30, 1969 · 305 F. Supp. 445 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743914 ## Case - **Full name:** Stella CONNELL, Individually, and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. James M. HIGGINBOTHAM, Superintendent of the Orange County Board of Public Instruction; Louise Breeze, Chairman of the Orange County Board of Public Instruction; And Lowell Clements, Raymond H. Bassett, William D. LaRue, Harley Thompkins, Mrs. Lee K. Davies and Stewart M. Schaffer, Defendants. Floyd T. Christian, Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, Intervenor - **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida - **Decided:** October 30, 1969 - **Citations:** 305 F. Supp. 445; 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10046 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Simpson - **Judges:** Simpson, Young, Scott - **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Modified by Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743914 ## Opinion text SIMPSON, Circuit Judge (concurring, in part and dissenting in part). In major part, I concur. I think that the court has properly disposed of the question of standing and that it correctly decides that this case meets the requirements for a class action prescribed by F.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and (b). I concur also in the majority’s holding that the oath prescribed by the Florida statute (F.S.A., Section 876.05) in the amended form submitted by defendants to plaintiff is unconstitutional in each of *455 the particulars pointed out by the court. 1 But for similar reasons I would hold that the provision: “that I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence”, is also unconstitutional. This provision deals solely with belief, with what is in the mind and may remain there forever unexpressed by word or deed. It does not deal with action. It does not even deal with spoken or written words advocating overthrow of government. Surely a teacher is entitled to his or her private, secret thoughts and beliefs. I view this attempt to regulate belief unattended by word or action as more clearly a violation of constitutional rights than provisions requiring an oath that the applicant does not belong to the Communist party, or that he does not belong to an organization listed as subversive by the Attorney General. 2 In those cases belief has at least been acted upon to the extent of joining an organization. As to the provision requiring a pledge of support of the federal and state constitutions, I am not so certain. This is an innocuous provision. Violation of it would be difficult to charge and probably impossible to prove. For reasons of vagueness alone I am inclined to believe it should be stricken also. Of course I agree that the plaintiff should be paid for her services' to the end of the school term in June 1969, the contract period. JUDGMENT Ordered and adjudged: 1. Final judgment shall be and is hereby entered in favor of the plaintiff, Stella Connell, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and against the defendants, James M. Higginbotham, Superintendent of the Orange County Board of Public Instruction, Louise Breeze, Chairman of the Orange County Board of Public Instruction, and Lowell Clements, Raymond H. Bassett, William D. LaRue, Harley Thompkins, Mrs. Lee K. Davies and Stewart M. Schaffer, in accordance with the majority opinion of the Court and the opinion of Circuit Judge Simpson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 2. The defendants, their agents, cf. ficers or employees are permanently enjoined from conditioning employment on the taking of an oath which prescribes “that I am not a member of the Communist Party” or “that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party” or “that I am not a member of any organization or party which believes in or teaches, directly or indirectly, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of Florida by force or violence”, which provisions are now contained in Section 876.05 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The defendants, their agents, officers and employees are likewise permanently enjoined from enforcing Section 876.07 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in such a manner as to require the execution of the above disapproved phrases as a condition to remaining in the defendants’ employ or as a condition to receiving payment from the defendants for services rendered. 3. The Court retains jurisdiction over this suit for the purpose of insuring compliance with the injunction and the order directed to defendants to pay the plaintiff the salary that has been adjudged to be due and owing. 4. The costs shall be hereafter taxed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. . The corresponding provisions of Sec. 876.07 of course fall with the portions of Sec. 876.05 held unconstitutional. . Cf. cases cited and quoted from by the majority opinion on pages 451, 452. See further: Brandenburg v. State of Ohio, 1969, 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743914. Public record. Not legal advice.