Joseph Keneddy was an assistant football coach at Bremerton High in Washington who used
to kneel and pray at the 50 yard line after games. At first it was just Kenneddy but later
players and other people started joining him. Only problem was the school telling him to
knock it off or at least move it somewhere private because they worried that the school was
endorsing religion. But Kenneddy kept doing it anyway for just three more games which got
him eventually put on leave and the school didn't renew his contract. He sued and it
eventually went all the way up.
The supreme court sided with him six to three. Their reason was because praying like that is
personal religious expression which is protected by both the free exercise clause and free
speech clause and the school doesn't get to shut it down just because it's worried about
looking like it endorses religion.
I personally don't think the outcome is crazy, it's just some ordinary guy who is quietly
praying by himself for about thirty seconds and isn't even forcing anyone to join. But the way
the court gets there is what actually makes me question them more than the result itself. They
basically threw out the “would a reasonable person see this as the school endorsing religion”
standard and changed it to something more vague based on “historical practices”. That's a
much bigger deal than just a prayer because it changes how the case gets decided moving
forward.
To be fair, calling this a “private” speech feels like it's missing the whole point. This is just a
coach, right after a game he just coached, at a midfield, where players and anyone can
absolutely see who joins in and who doesn't. Even if nobody technically told you “you have
to pray”, a kid who wants playing time isn't exactly in a position to walk away. The court
treated that pressure as basically not existing and that's the part, although small, I don't like.
So my real opinion is that the reasonable sounding result along with the shaky reasoning and
bigger legal shift , killing the endorsement test, matters way more in the long term than
whether this one coach got his job back.
Reference: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S 507 (2022).
to kneel and pray at the 50 yard line after games. At first it was just Kenneddy but later
players and other people started joining him. Only problem was the school telling him to
knock it off or at least move it somewhere private because they worried that the school was
endorsing religion. But Kenneddy kept doing it anyway for just three more games which got
him eventually put on leave and the school didn't renew his contract. He sued and it
eventually went all the way up.
The supreme court sided with him six to three. Their reason was because praying like that is
personal religious expression which is protected by both the free exercise clause and free
speech clause and the school doesn't get to shut it down just because it's worried about
looking like it endorses religion.
I personally don't think the outcome is crazy, it's just some ordinary guy who is quietly
praying by himself for about thirty seconds and isn't even forcing anyone to join. But the way
the court gets there is what actually makes me question them more than the result itself. They
basically threw out the “would a reasonable person see this as the school endorsing religion”
standard and changed it to something more vague based on “historical practices”. That's a
much bigger deal than just a prayer because it changes how the case gets decided moving
forward.
To be fair, calling this a “private” speech feels like it's missing the whole point. This is just a
coach, right after a game he just coached, at a midfield, where players and anyone can
absolutely see who joins in and who doesn't. Even if nobody technically told you “you have
to pray”, a kid who wants playing time isn't exactly in a position to walk away. The court
treated that pressure as basically not existing and that's the part, although small, I don't like.
So my real opinion is that the reasonable sounding result along with the shaky reasoning and
bigger legal shift , killing the endorsement test, matters way more in the long term than
whether this one coach got his job back.
Reference: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S 507 (2022).
