WASHINGTON – The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems to be looking on Monday for a narrow ruling in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job because he prayed on the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
The task was complicated by factual disputes over the conduct of Coach Joseph A. Kennedy and the changing justifications offered by the school district of Bremerton, Washington, for disciplining him.
According to Paul D. Clement, one of Mr. Kennedy’s lawyers, his client tried to offer only a short, quiet and solitary prayer of thanksgiving after his team’s matches. Earlier episodes, including prayers in the locker room, were irrelevant, Mr Clement said.
Richard B. Katski, a lawyer for the Bremerton school district, said the school has the right to require its staff to abstain from public prayer if students are likely to feel compelled to participate.
He was challenged by some of the more conservative judges, who said the county had initially argued that this could prevent Mr Kennedy from praying on a different basis: that the school would be seen as approving religion, allowing it . They suggest that the fear of coercion is a rationalization after the fact.
Judges from across the ideological spectrum bombarded lawyers with hypothetical questions. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked if Mr. Kennedy could have prayed aloud while standing with his arms outstretched. Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked if Mr Kennedy would be punished for protesting Ukraine’s invasion, climate change or racial injustice.
The way the conservative members of the court were questioned was not surprising, as four of them issued a statement questioning the preliminary ruling in favor of U.S. Court of Appeals officers for the Ninth District in San Francisco.
“The Ninth District’s understanding of teachers’ freedom of speech rights in public schools is worrying and may justify a reconsideration in the future,” Judge Alito wrote at the time. He was joined by Judges Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Cavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.
“What is perhaps most disturbing in the opinion of the Ninth Round,” added Judge Alito, “is a language that can be understood to mean that the coach’s obligation to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any display of religious faith – even when the coach is clearly out of service. “
Following further proceedings, a unanimous panel of three Ninth District Judges again ruled against Mr Kennedy, stating that school officials had the right to ban his public prayers in order to avoid a potential breach of the First Amendment ban on government establishment. religion.
The full ninth district refused to reconsider the case due to objections from 11 judges. The two sides expressed sharp differences over how to characterize Mr Kennedy’s actions.
Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., the author of the committee’s opinion, wrote that “Kennedy has set himself the mission of intertwining religion with football.”
“He led the team in prayer in the locker room before each game and some players began to join him for his post-match prayer, where his practice eventually evolved to include full religious speeches and prayers with players from both teams after the matches were held while the players were still on the field and while the fans remained in the stands, “wrote referee Smith.
In response, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain said the committee’s opinion was the opposite. “It is axiomatic that teachers do not ‘transfer’ their protection from the First Amendment to the gate of the school building,” he wrote, citing a 1969 Supreme Court ruling. a new rule that every speech of a teacher or coach in a public school while on the clock and in the hearing of others is subject to plenary scrutiny by the government.
On Monday, Judge Stephen G. Breyer said the Kennedy case against the Bremerton School District, 21-418, was an unusual challenge. “This may be about the facts, not much about the law,” he said.
Add Comment