Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
597 U.S. 507 (2022)
Opinion Summary
Held that a public school football coach's post-game prayers on the fifty-yard line were protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses. The Court abandoned the Lemon test for Establishment Clause analysis, replacing it with a focus on historical practices and understandings. Significantly altered the relationship between religion and public schools.
About this case
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision [1] by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause , may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
The case involved Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in the public school system of Bremerton , Washington . Kennedy had taken the practice of praying at the middle of the field immediately after each game. The players and others soon joined the practice. The school board were concerned the practice would be seen as violating the Establishment Clause separating church and state . They attempted to negotiate with Kennedy to pray elsewhere or at a later time, but Kennedy continued the practice. His contract was not renewed, leading Kennedy to sue the board. Lower Courts, including the Ninth Circuit , ruled in favor of the school board and their argument regarding the Establishment Clause.
The majority opinion from the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause does not allow a government body to take a hostile view of religion in considering personal rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, and that the board acted improperly in not renewing Kennedy's contract. The decision all but overruled _Lemon v. Kurtzman _ (1971) and abandoned the "Lemon test", which had been used to evaluate government actions within the scope of the Establishment Clause but had been falling out of favor for decades prior.
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
Joseph Kennedy is a practicing Christian and was an assistant football coach at Bremerton High School , a public school in Bremerton, Washington , starting in 2008. Inspired by the film _Facing the Giants _, Kennedy began praying after each football game, in the center of the field, at the 50-yard line.[2]
Over time, Kennedy was joined by his players, and then by players and coaches from the opposing team. Kennedy continued the practice for seven years, but the school board only learned of the practice after an opposing team commented positively that the district would allow for the practice.[3] The board became concerned that they would be seen as complicit in violating the separation of church and state by allowing for Kennedy's prayers to continue, as well as the implicit coercion that players may feel to join in on the prayer.[3]
The board negotiated with Kennedy to reduce the public display of the prayer, offering to provide Kennedy with a private location for his prayer or suggesting that he held his prayer after the spectators had left, among other accommodations. Through the athletic director, Kennedy was warned that any such display should be clearly student-led. Kennedy wrote to his Facebook page that he felt he was likely being fired, and a few games later, he continued to pray after the game with additional coverage by the press and local politicians. Spectators knocked over members of the marching band while racing to join the prayer and directed profanity at Bremerton's head coach, who said he feared being "shot from the crowd."[2]
After Kennedy continued this prayer for two more games, the district superintendent put him on paid leave for violating the school's policies and endangering students. The school's athletic director recommended that the school not re-hire Kennedy. Kennedy's contract for the year ended, and Kennedy did not re-apply the next year.[4] [5]
Lower courts
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Lower courts")
Kennedy filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to regain his job, claiming the school's policy violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment . The board stated that they were trying to avoid any conflicts with the Establishment Clause by preventing public displays of faith at a public school. The district court ruled for the school board, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in an opinion by Judge Milan Smith .[6] [7] In 2019, the Supreme Court denied his first petition for a writ of _certiorari _, but Justice Alito , joined by Thomas , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh said the case was "troubling and may justify review in the future."[8] [4]
After conducting further fact-finding, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district in March 2020.[9] In March 2021, the Ninth Circuit again ruled for the school district on appeal.[10] In July 2021, the full Ninth Circuit denied rehearing _en banc _.[11] The Ninth Circuit was split in this denial; while Judge Milan Smith , writing for the majority in denying en banc, said that "Kennedy made it his mission to intertwine religion with football", Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in the dissenting opinion wrote that the majority went against _Tinker v. Des Moines _ in that "It is axiomatic that teachers do not 'shed' their First Amendment protections 'at the schoolhouse gate'."[12]
Kennedy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[7]
Paul Clement and the First Liberty Institute , a conservative Christian organization, represented Kennedy.[13]
Supreme Court
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Supreme Court")
The Supreme Court granted _certiorari _ on January 14, 2022,[14] and the Court heard oral arguments on April 25, 2022. According to Adam Liptak of _[The New York Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_N
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
Related Cases
Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Established the principle of judicial review, empowering federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when a statute conflicts with it, the courts must give effect to the Constitution. This foundational decision made the judiciary a coequal branch of government.
McCulloch v. Maryland
17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States under the Necessary and Proper Clause and held that states cannot tax federal institutions. Chief Justice Marshall established a broad interpretation of congressional power, declaring that the federal government possesses implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
Held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens of the United States and had no standing to sue in federal court. Chief Justice Taney also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Widely condemned as the worst Supreme Court decision in history, it inflamed sectional tensions and contributed to the onset of the Civil War. Effectively overruled by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plessy v. Ferguson
163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The Court ruled that Louisiana's law requiring separate railway cars for Black and white passengers did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan's lone dissent declared the Constitution 'color-blind.' Overruled by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Lochner v. New York
198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour work week, holding it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty of contract. Inaugurated the 'Lochner era' of aggressive judicial review of economic regulations, which lasted until the late 1930s. Now widely criticized as judicial overreach.
Case Information
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court Level
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Date Decided
- Monday, June 27, 2022
- Citation
- 597 U.S. 507 (2022)
- Jurisdiction
- United States Federal
Legal Topics
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.