Almost everyone agrees it should not require two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the case of a high school football coach who wants to pray at the 50-yard line.
Maybe former Bremerton High School assistant coach Joseph Kennedy could have conceded that his postgame prayer of gratitude could take place somewhere other than midfield, or discouraged what one judge called a “spectacle” of stampeding supporters and politicians who rushed after one game to kneel beside him on the gridiron.
Maybe the school district could have offered an accommodation that didn’t require Kennedy to climb to the stadium press box, or retreat to a janitor’s office in the school, to offer his prayer. Instead, it prohibited him from any “demonstrative religious activity” that is “readily observable to (if not intended to be observed by) students and the attending public.”
Nonetheless, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District arrives before the justices Monday. It brings vexing questions about the ability of public employees to live out their faith while on duty and the government’s competing responsibility to protect schoolchildren from coercion and to remain neutral on the subject of religion.
The case offers a court that has recently been overwhelmingly protective of religious rights the chance to transform decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that started 60 years ago with the admonition that government cannot organize and promote prayer in public schools.
Supreme Court’s conservatives critical of school tuition program excluding religious teaching
Four justices sympathized with Kennedy a couple of years ago when the case first reached the Supreme Court, but it was deemed premature for consideration. Now, it pits red states against blue ones, some professional football players against others, divides constitutional experts and has drawn more attention — 57 friend-of-the-court briefs — than any case at the Supreme Court this term, except for the controversies over abortion and gun control.
It also split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where a slim majority of judges ruled for the school district. They cited Supreme Court precedent that limits the speech rights of on-duty public employees, and said the district was warranted in worrying that allowing Kennedy’s public prayer would violate the constitution’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion.
That ruling was denounced in a filing by 24 Republican U.S. senators and 32 representatives.
“The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning weaponizes the Establishment Clause, concluding that it requires a school to root out any religious expression by its employees — even to fire teachers, coaches, and staff who will not leave their faith at home,” the brief states. “If left uncorrected, this ruling threatens religious liberty … for all public employees.”
Those supporting the school district say that Kennedy has radically recast the events that led to his dismissal and that his actions during the 2015 football season were hardly private acts of faith. His Facebook post — “I think I just might have been fired for praying” — drew national attention and elicited support from prominent advocates, including former president Donald Trump and Fox News pundits.
But the district’s supporters say Kennedy’s rights are no more important than those of students and parents who do not want to mix religion and school instruction.
Kennedy seeks to characterize the school district’s “concern for the religious freedom and equality of its students as nothing more than hostility to his own religious practice — a move that turns on its head decades of well-reasoned school prayer jurisprudence,” said a brief filed by 11 law professors who identify themselves as “church-state scholars.”
ADVERTISING
“It does not reflect religious hostility, but instead vindicates religious equality, for a school to require that its employees avoid coercing or compelling students (even subtly) to adopt favored religious beliefs or practices.”
Kennedy and his wife — in a town where everyone seems connected, she is the former human relations supervisor for the school district he sued — have moved to Florida to care for her ailing father.
He returned to Bremerton last month to show reporters around his blue-collar hometown of about 40,000. Seattle is a ferry ride away across the Puget Sound, and the outline of the Olympic mountain range is visible from the home-team side of the stadium where the BHS Knights play.
“It never should have been a big thing,” Kennedy said as he greeted former students on the stadium track. “It was supposed to be me and God, that’s it.” Asked if God cares where he prays, Kennedy said: “I don’t think he cares either way. But that was my covenant. So I do.”
More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/supreme-court-praying-football-coach/
Maybe former Bremerton High School assistant coach Joseph Kennedy could have conceded that his postgame prayer of gratitude could take place somewhere other than midfield, or discouraged what one judge called a “spectacle” of stampeding supporters and politicians who rushed after one game to kneel beside him on the gridiron.
Maybe the school district could have offered an accommodation that didn’t require Kennedy to climb to the stadium press box, or retreat to a janitor’s office in the school, to offer his prayer. Instead, it prohibited him from any “demonstrative religious activity” that is “readily observable to (if not intended to be observed by) students and the attending public.”
Nonetheless, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District arrives before the justices Monday. It brings vexing questions about the ability of public employees to live out their faith while on duty and the government’s competing responsibility to protect schoolchildren from coercion and to remain neutral on the subject of religion.
The case offers a court that has recently been overwhelmingly protective of religious rights the chance to transform decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that started 60 years ago with the admonition that government cannot organize and promote prayer in public schools.
Supreme Court’s conservatives critical of school tuition program excluding religious teaching
Four justices sympathized with Kennedy a couple of years ago when the case first reached the Supreme Court, but it was deemed premature for consideration. Now, it pits red states against blue ones, some professional football players against others, divides constitutional experts and has drawn more attention — 57 friend-of-the-court briefs — than any case at the Supreme Court this term, except for the controversies over abortion and gun control.
It also split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where a slim majority of judges ruled for the school district. They cited Supreme Court precedent that limits the speech rights of on-duty public employees, and said the district was warranted in worrying that allowing Kennedy’s public prayer would violate the constitution’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion.
That ruling was denounced in a filing by 24 Republican U.S. senators and 32 representatives.
“The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning weaponizes the Establishment Clause, concluding that it requires a school to root out any religious expression by its employees — even to fire teachers, coaches, and staff who will not leave their faith at home,” the brief states. “If left uncorrected, this ruling threatens religious liberty … for all public employees.”
Those supporting the school district say that Kennedy has radically recast the events that led to his dismissal and that his actions during the 2015 football season were hardly private acts of faith. His Facebook post — “I think I just might have been fired for praying” — drew national attention and elicited support from prominent advocates, including former president Donald Trump and Fox News pundits.
But the district’s supporters say Kennedy’s rights are no more important than those of students and parents who do not want to mix religion and school instruction.
Kennedy seeks to characterize the school district’s “concern for the religious freedom and equality of its students as nothing more than hostility to his own religious practice — a move that turns on its head decades of well-reasoned school prayer jurisprudence,” said a brief filed by 11 law professors who identify themselves as “church-state scholars.”
ADVERTISING
“It does not reflect religious hostility, but instead vindicates religious equality, for a school to require that its employees avoid coercing or compelling students (even subtly) to adopt favored religious beliefs or practices.”
Kennedy and his wife — in a town where everyone seems connected, she is the former human relations supervisor for the school district he sued — have moved to Florida to care for her ailing father.
He returned to Bremerton last month to show reporters around his blue-collar hometown of about 40,000. Seattle is a ferry ride away across the Puget Sound, and the outline of the Olympic mountain range is visible from the home-team side of the stadium where the BHS Knights play.
“It never should have been a big thing,” Kennedy said as he greeted former students on the stadium track. “It was supposed to be me and God, that’s it.” Asked if God cares where he prays, Kennedy said: “I don’t think he cares either way. But that was my covenant. So I do.”
More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/supreme-court-praying-football-coach/