Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 761.03 (2025)
Free exercise of religion protected.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
761.03 Free exercise of religion protected.—
(1) The government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(a) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2004).
Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2004). “§ 761.03, Fla. Stat. (2003). Another provision of the FRFRA provides attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff from the government.”
Cambridge Christian Sch., Inc. v. Florida High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 942 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2019). “Finally, Cambridge Christian failed to state a claim under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Fla. Stat. § 761.03 , because pre-game prayer was “required by its religious mission,” and not by its “religious belief,” and thus any burden on Cambridge Christian’s actual…”
Wilson v. Moore, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2003). “” Fla. Stat. § 761.03 . Defendants contend that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it “raises novel and complex issues of state law” that should be “tested in Florida’s own courts.”
Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “Fla. Stat. § 761.03 (1). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Florida RFRA claims should be dismissed because, similar to its RLUIPA claims, Plaintiff fails to identify a “substantial burden.”
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). “Primera then sued the County in state court under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, Fla. Stat. § 761.03 (2004), challenging the County’s enforcement of the Separation Requirement.”
Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2019). “Finally, Count VIII alleges that the ordinances violate Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("FRFRA"), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 761.03 . Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on fewer grounds than alleged in their Complaint, which seeks a permanent injunction.”
Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “See § 761.03, Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court necessarily has the authority to determine whether the selected site complies with the requirements and intent of its order.”
Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 11 F.4th 1266 (11th Cir. 2021). “Some years ago, Arnold Abbott, who led a program to feed the homeless on a public Fort Lauderdale beach, obtained a state-court injunction against the Park Rule on the ground that it violated Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Fla. Stat. § 761.03 . (Abbott is not…”
Toca v. State, 834 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “[7] Section 761.03 of the Act provides: 761.03.”
Konikov v. Orange Cnty., Florida, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 761.03(1), Fla. Stat. As discussed earlier in connection with the Free Exercise and RLUIPA counts, Plaintiff has not established a claim under these standards.”
First Baptist Church of Perrine v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 768 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “Section 761.03, Florida Statutes provides that "the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion.”
Temple B'Nai Zion, Inc. v. City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, 727 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2013). “Finally, the nondiscrimination clause forbids the "imposition] or implementation] [of] a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” Id. § 2000cc(b)(2). Because the language of FRFRA is largely…”
— 761.03(1) — 8 cases
Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2004). “§ 761.03, Fla. Stat. (2003). Another provision of the FRFRA provides attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff from the government.”
Konikov v. Orange Cnty., Florida, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 761.03(1), Fla. Stat. As discussed earlier in connection with the Free Exercise and RLUIPA counts, Plaintiff has not established a claim under these standards.”
Muhammad v. Crosby, 922 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Williams Island Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Aventura, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
Christian Romany Church v. Broward Cnty., 980 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
— 761.03(1)(a) — 3 cases
Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2004). “§ 761.03, Fla. Stat. (2003). Another provision of the FRFRA provides attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff from the government.”
Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “See § 761.03, Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court necessarily has the authority to determine whether the selected site complies with the requirements and intent of its order.”
Freeman v. Dep't of High. Saf., 924 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.