茄子视频

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The Supreme Court on Monday widened the scope for religious expression in public facilities, ruling that a high school football coach should have been granted permission to pray on the field after games.

The Court鈥檚 ascendant conservative majority, which has proven increasingly friendly to petitions concerning religious freedom over the last few years, in Kennedy v. Bremerton, one of the last to be determined in the 2022 term. The case stretched back to 2015, when conflict first arose between the coach, Joseph Kennedy, and the leadership of the Washington State public high school where he worked.聽

After an escalating disagreement over Kennedy鈥檚 practice of post-game prayer 鈥� and whether observers would assume it constituted a government endorsement of religion 鈥� he was placed on administrative leave and given a poor professional evaluation. He subsequently left the job.

In a lengthy opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the school鈥檚 actions violated Kennedy鈥檚 First Amendment rights, likening his postgame ritual to the protected actions taken by classroom teachers when donning a Muslim headscarf or praying silently before lunch in a cafeteria.

鈥淗ere, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment,鈥� Gorsuch wrote. 鈥淭he Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.鈥�

While addressing a relatively narrow corridor of First Amendment jurisprudence 鈥� the case doesn鈥檛 deal directly with officially mandated prayer in educational settings, or even academically related functions 鈥� Kennedy will likely change the way school districts and other public authorities approach public acts of faith. Specifically, the ruling signals a willingness to reconsider the balance between the Constitution鈥檚 Establishment Clause (barring the establishment of a state religion) and the Free Exercise Clause (prohibiting the government from interfering in religious practice). 

In a move that during oral arguments in April, the majority effectively sidelined the so-called Lemon test, a three-part rubric for determining whether a particular government action subverts the Establishment Clause. Derived from the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case, the rule held that those acts must serve some secular purpose; that they neither promote nor encumber religion; and that they not foster 鈥渆xcessive entanglement鈥� between government and religion.

Dismissing the test, Gorsuch said that the Supreme Court had long since abandoned its 鈥渁bstract and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause.鈥� 

Joshua Dunn, a political scientist at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, said that in the wake of the ruling, public schools 鈥渨ill have a more difficult time claiming that the speech of employees is part of their official duties and thus subject to government control.鈥�

鈥淭he most important result of today鈥檚 opinion is that it completely lays to rest the Lemon test,鈥� Dunn wrote in an email. 鈥淭he vast majority of cases where [this test was] applied involved public education. Instead, the court said that judicial application of the Establishment Clause should be guided [by] the clause鈥檚 historical understanding and application. Schools and school districts will certainly have more flexibility in accommodating religious expression after today.鈥�

Writing for the Court鈥檚 liberal minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor characterized the plaintiff鈥檚 actions as anything but quiet and personal, citing multiple photos of football players joining their coach in prayer. To call Kennedy a private actor, even as he held a public role and prayed in an open venue, was to 鈥渕isconstrue the facts,鈥� she argued.

“The record reveals that Kennedy had a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field,鈥� wrote Sotomayor. 鈥淜ennedy consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The Court ignores this history.” 

The decision is only the latest in which conservative members of the Court cautioned local governments to more stringently avoid what they characterized as discrimination against religion. Last week, the same 6-3 majority struck down a Maine statute barring parochial schools from accepting public funding. That ruling, and several others preceding it, have led some legal experts to wonder if further blurring of the public and religious spheres is still to come. 

The full spectrum of religious activity across the nation鈥檚 130,000 public schools, whether led by students or staff, is difficult to know for certain. In conducted by the Pew Research Center, roughly four-in-ten American teenagers said they regularly witnessed prayers held before sporting events. About six-in-ten respondents said they saw prayers occur before lunch.

Rachel Laser, president of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school board in the case, said the ruling represented 鈥渢he greatest loss of religious freedom in our country in generations.鈥�

鈥淭oday, the court continued its assault on church-state separation, by falsely describing coercive prayer as 鈥榩ersonal鈥� and stopping public schools from protecting their students鈥� religious freedom,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is no coincidence that the erosion of the line between church and state has come alongside devastating losses on so many of the rights we cherish.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.