Get 40% Off
⚠ Earnings Alert! Which stocks are poised to surge?
See the stocks on our ProPicks radar. These strategies gained 19.7% year-to-date.
Unlock full list

U.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean toward football coach in prayer case

Published 04/25/2022, 06:03 AM
Updated 04/25/2022, 03:41 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A general view of the Supreme Court building at the start of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 4, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared receptive to making it easier for public school employees to more freely express their religious views, signaling it would side with a Christian former high school football coach in Washington state who refused to stop leading prayers with players on the field after games.

The court's conservative justices appeared prepared to allow such expression of religious views despite concerns that in a public school setting this could be seen as coercive to students or a governmental endorsement of a particular religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has taken a broad view of religious liberty in numerous cases, heard arguments involving Joseph Kennedy, a former part-time assistant football coach in the city of Bremerton. Kennedy appealed a lower court's ruling that rejected his claims that the local school district's decision to suspend him in 2015 for refusing to stop the prayers and Christian-infused speeches after games violated his First Amendment religious exercise and free speech rights.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the school district specifically targeted religious speech, wondering whether Kennedy would have been disciplined for waving a Ukrainian flag to protest Russia's invasion.

"What reason is there to believe that you would have treated that case the same way?" Alito asked Richard Katskee, a lawyer for the school board.

At issue is whether, as a public employee, Kennedy's actions amounted to governmental speech, which can be regulated under Supreme Court precedents, or a private act separate from his official duties, which the First Amendment would protect.

Conservative justices signaled skepticism toward the idea that Kennedy's actions could be viewed as governmental endorsement of religion, which was the basis upon which lower courts ruled. They noted that his prayers occurred after games and seemed to view them as not part of his official duties.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Kennedy did not order players to "huddle up" as he would during his normal coaching duties, meaning they were not required to join.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, said Kennedy's prayers could be seen as private activity, like a teacher running a Christian club after school. In such situations in which employees makes it clear they are speaking for themselves outside of their normal duties "nobody could mistake it for government speech," Barrett said.

'GOT ON A KNEE'

The school district notified Kennedy to stop the prayers while on duty, offering other private locations in the school as alternatives. He initially appeared to comply, it said, but later refused and made media appearances publicizing the dispute, attracting national attention. After repeated defiance, Kennedy was placed on paid leave from his seasonal contract and did not re-apply as a coach the subsequent season.

Liberal justices questioned why Kennedy drew attention to his prayer and later sought publicity over the controversy.

"He's the one who chose to publicize his prayer by doing it on the 50-yard line. He didn't do it on the side. He didn't just bow his head. He got on a knee at the very center of the field," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Justice Elena Kagan mentioned Supreme Court precedents that let schools discipline teachers for activity that "puts a kind of undue pressure, a kind of coercion on students to participate in religious activities when they may not wish to."

Even if it is clear a teacher is not speaking on behalf of the school district, coercion could be present, Kagan added.

Paul Clement, the lawyer representing Kennedy, said there is no evidence students were coerced, saying the school district had originally argued only that it was seeking to avoid endorsing a particular religion.

Kennedy served as a coach at his alma mater, Bremerton High School, from 2008 to 2015. His lawyers assert that he "lost his job" because of his actions, suing in 2016. Kennedy sought a court order to be reinstated as a coach, accusing officials of religious discrimination and violating his free speech rights.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A general view of the Supreme Court building at the start of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 4, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Officials noted in court papers that Kennedy has moved to Florida. He has said he would return if he gets his job back.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Latest comments

did the coach pray in just one religion, were the players all the same religion? how did the others feel?
dumb religion has not place at courts
The headline should have said "Republican appointed judges follow constitution."
Republican appointed judges are pro-coercion.
Conservative justices? Pretty sure we just have justices
what if it was a moslem prayer event, is that ok?
Or what if the coach was praying to Karl Marx?
what if it was a Muslim cleric, doing same, would that be ok?
Yeah, this school district is 10 min up the road from me. This is getting blown out of proportion. School district shouldn’t have wasted everybody’s time. Heck, the majority of his prayers were something you didn’t have to be a part of and akin to what you saw on those cool high school footbal movies where the coach actually cares about his players and models his beliefs—-you know like a leader.
Like a religious leader.
We have much bigger problems facing our nation don’t you think?
Problems both big & small should be tackled simultaneously.  Solving small problems today means less big problems tomorrow.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.