Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Supreme Court tackling case about praying football coach


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://apnews.com/article/sports-football-religion-prayer-washington-7490d215c8b1ead529299ac92114dbab

Quote

The Supreme Court will tackle a dispute between public school officials and a former high school football coach who wanted to kneel and pray on the field after games.

The case before the justices on Monday involves Joseph Kennedy, a former football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington. For years, the coach would kneel at the center of the field following games and lead students in prayer. The school district eventually learned what he was doing and asked him to stop.

Kennedy’s lawyers say the Constitution’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion guarantees allow him to pray on the field, with students free to join. But the school district says Kennedy’s religious speech interfered with students’ own religious freedom rights, could have the effect of pressuring students to pray and opened the district itself to lawsuits. The school district says it tried to work out a solution so Kennedy, who is Christian, could pray privately before or after the game, including on the field after students left, but Kennedy’s lawsuit followed.

The case comes to the court at a time when conservative justices make up a majority of the court and have been sympathetic to the concerns of religious individuals and groups, such as groups that brought challenges to coronavirus restrictions that applied to houses of worship.

But cases involving religion can also unite the court. Last year, for example, the court unanimously sided with a Catholic foster care agency that said its religious views prevent it from working with same-sex couples. Already this term in an 8-1 decision the justices ruled for a Texas death row inmate who sought to have his pastor pray aloud and touch him while his execution was carried out.

The case from Bremerton, meanwhile, has already caught the justices’ attention. In 2019 the justices declined to get involved in the case at an earlier stage. But four justices were critical of lower court rulings for the school district, writing that an appeals court’s “understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling.”

Kennedy started working at Bremerton High School in 2008, and it was his practice at the end of games — after the players and coaches from both teams would meet at midfield to shake hands — to pause and kneel to pray. Kennedy said he wanted to give thanks for what his players had accomplished and for their safety, among other things.

Kennedy initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games, but students started joining him and over time he began to deliver a short, inspirational talk with religious references. Kennedy says he never required players to join or asked any student to pray. He also led the team in prayer in the locker room before games, a practice that predated him.

The school district didn’t learn of Kennedy’s practice until 2015. It told him then that he needed to stop praying with students or engaging in overtly religious activity while still “on duty” as a coach. After Kennedy continued to pray on the field, he was placed on paid leave. His contract expired and he didn’t reapply to coach the following year, the school says.

A decision is expected before the court begins its summer recess.

The case is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418.

Anybody have an opinion on how the SCOTUS will rule, and what will be the consequences of that ruling?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that both sides in this case are relying on the First Amendment … but different “rights” protected by the First. Coach is arguing that his praying immediately following a game, on the field, is protected free speech, and by prohibiting him from doing so, the school district violated his right to freedom of speech. The School District is relying on the Establishment Clause of the First, i.e., the clause that prohibits the establishment of a “state” religion.

For me, this is the crucial aspect of the case. The coach was not fired because of the content of his speech, i.e., prayer. Rather, he was fired because the school district had been advised that allowing this to go on could subject them to civil lawsuits by students and their parents, claiming that the practice violates the Establishment Clause. They made every effort to accommodate the coach’s wish to pray following games. “Free” speech has never been absolutely free: the whole “yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater thing. Speech is always subject to reasonable limitations as to time, place, and manner. The thing that makes it hard for the coach to win (I think) is that there is no evidence that the school district acted because of the content of his speech, i.e., a prayer. If this truly was only about the coach’s freedom of expression, there would be no problem with him doing it in the privacy of the coaches’ locker room, or on the field after the students had gone, both of which, IMO, would represent reasonable time, place and manner restraints on his protected speech, and both of which were offered as alternatives by the school district. But, as the following article points out, it depends which version of the facts you believe. https://today.law.harvard.edu/supreme-court-preview-kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district/
 

Although this is a Q & A with a Harvard Law Professor, it’s easily understood by non-lawyers, and presents a very clear and concise overview of the case, and explanation of the issues involved.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

But, as the following article points out, it depends which version of the facts you believe. https://today.law.harvard.edu/supreme-court-preview-kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district/
 

Although this is a Q & A with a Harvard Law Professor, it’s easily understood by non-lawyers, and presents a very clear and concise overview of the case, and explanation of the issues involved.

From the link Bobref provided:

Quote

HLT: Why do you think the Supreme Court decided to take this case?

Levinson: Let me approach this question more as a political scientist than as a lawyer. The Court says over and over again that it exists only to resolve cases of genuine national importance, or where there are conflicting rulings among lower courts that need to be resolved with a singular national rule, rather than allowing the embarrassment of saying that there’s one Constitution for the Fifth Circuit, and another Constitution for the Second Circuit. In this case, it’s hard to believe that this is an issue of great national importance, and there are no conflicts among the lower courts.

So, why in the world did the Supreme Court take this case? I think it’s because there are now at least four justices — that’s all it takes for the Court to take a case — who are active soldiers in the culture wars and who are on the side of anybody with a religious claim against the secular authorities. My hunch is that there are five justices — and maybe six, with Chief Justice Roberts — who will accept some version of the coach’s story and say that he wins. And this will be billed in some circles as yet another way that the Supreme Court is protecting us, that is, religious believers, against their secular oppressors.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if you are not a culture warrior, then you’re going to be predisposed to saying that the Ninth Circuit got it right. Given their description of the state of facts, you would really have to argue that the courts below were clearly erroneous in their descriptions of the world as a reason to hear the case.

Probably the truth.  This case has no real significant national importance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DE said:

And I disagree about not having "no real significant national importance".

 

Why exactly?  Do you believe if Mr. Kennedy wins it will open the floodgates for repressed high school football coaches across the country, and they will all start praying on the 50 yard line at the end of games?  Which to be honest I have never understood the need to do this, other than "look at me" proselyting.

 

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Why exactly?  Do you believe if Mr. Kennedy wins it will open the floodgates for repressed high school football coaches across the country, and they will all start praying on the 50 yard line at the end of games?  Which to be honest I have never understood the need to do this, other than "look at me" proselyting.

 

 

My  beliefs.

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football Coach Prayer Case Captures Public Schooling’s Basic Equality Problem: https://www.cato.org/blog/football-coach-prayer-case-captures-public-schoolings-basic-equality-problem

Quote

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of a high school football coach whose prayers at the end of games launched a years‐long legal battle over religion in public schools. It continues the battle between religion and public schooling we have seen since public schooling Day One, and illustrates the impossibility of truly neutral public schooling.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is about Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach for the Bremerton High School football team in Washington state, who started praying by himself on the 50‐yard line at the conclusion of games and was eventually joined by players. Kennedy did not require students to pray with him, but at least one player said he felt pressure to join because Kennedy was in a position of authority, and he feared losing playing time. In 2015, the school district asked Kennedy to cease praying and did not rehire him when he refused. He eventually sued, and the case has been in litigation ever since.

Of course, the main question is who has the law on their side, but that is not the root problem in this case. That is public schooling itself: no matter how the case is resolved in court, some group of people will either see government⁠—which is what public schools are⁠—allow something they dislike, or prohibit something they believe is important, in the schools for which they all must pay.

If Kennedy wins, it potentially opens the door for any public‐school employee, including principals and superintendents, to engage in prayer immediately after the conclusion of school events. That could send a message to district residents that if you are not of their religion, you do not fully belong. But prohibiting such expression specifically because it is religious, which is what the case targets, is discrimination against religion. Of course, government schools should not be religious under the establishment clause and because that would render non‐religious residents second‐class, but that does not change the fact that singling out religious expression as unacceptable discriminates against religion.

The solution to the problem of diverse people having to all fund, and in many cases de facto attend, assigned government schools is to move from public schooling to public education. Let funds follow children to schools their families choose, and every family and educator will be able to freely seek what they think is right without having to impose it on those who disagree. In particular, people desiring overtly religious education will be able to attain it without having to either sacrifice their tax dollars or impose it on others.

Freedom saves everyone from government discrimination.

Such a simple and noble solution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF has always seen religion in schools as "all or none".  Either provide an avenue for all religions to practice, or allow none.  In other words, if said football coach wants to have a Christian prayer at the end of the game and a host of other students voluntarily or "organically" (to use the latest phrasing) chooses to participate, then the opportunity should exist for every other religion or even atheist entity to do the same.

If I had to choose, I would say none.  The place for religion to be taught and practiced is at home or the Church or Synagogues or Mosques - not at school.  JMHO

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swordfish said:

If I had to choose, I would say none.  The place for religion to be taught and practiced is at home or the Church or Synagogues or Mosques - not at school.  JMHO

I agree … and so does the Constitution. The problem is always with the concept of “implied coercion.”  There’s 60 kids on the team. The coach announces a voluntary “Christian” prayer session after the game, and almost all of the kids enthusiastically support it. Almost all. What is the likelihood that the 3 kids who don’t (2 have been raised as atheists, and one is a Muslim) will not feel coerced into attending? Despite the coaches’ assurances that not attending will not be held against anyone, that only heightens the skepticism of the 3 on that issue. Is there concern unreasonable? And how do you account for unconscious bias that might work against the 3? The whole point is that the government should not be making those kids choose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I agree … and so does the Constitution. The problem is always with the concept of “implied coercion.”  There’s 60 kids on the team. The coach announces a voluntary “Christian” prayer session after the game, and almost all of the kids enthusiastically support it. Almost all. What is the likelihood that the 3 kids who don’t (2 have been raised as atheists, and one is a Muslim) will not feel coerced into attending? Despite the coaches’ assurances that not attending will not be held against anyone, that only heightens the skepticism of the 3 on that issue. Is there concern unreasonable? And how do you account for unconscious bias that might work against the 3? The whole point is that the government should not be making those kids choose.

Yeah - what he said.......And this is why we have the necessary evil known as the "Lawyer"......Love ya BR.....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I agree … and so does the Constitution. The problem is always with the concept of “implied coercion.”  There’s 60 kids on the team. The coach announces a voluntary “Christian” prayer session after the game, and almost all of the kids enthusiastically support it. Almost all. What is the likelihood that the 3 kids who don’t (2 have been raised as atheists, and one is a Muslim) will not feel coerced into attending? Despite the coaches’ assurances that not attending will not be held against anyone, that only heightens the skepticism of the 3 on that issue. Is there concern unreasonable? And how do you account for unconscious bias that might work against the 3? The whole point is that the government should not be making those kids choose.

I have a relative whose child was basically shunned by the rest of the student body for most of a school year for declaring in a gym class that he was an atheist.  This was in the sixth grade in a government school.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-coach-prayer-2981a8073ea82a1a688c367270c941aa

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a football coach from Washington state who sought to kneel and pray on the field after games.

The court ruled 6-3 for the coach with the court’s conservative justices in the majority and its liberals in dissent. The justices said the coach’s prayer was protected by the First Amendment.

“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

The case forced the justices to wrestle with how to balance the religious and free speech rights of teachers and coaches with the rights of students not to feel pressured into participating in religious practices. The outcome could strengthen the acceptability of some religious practices in some other public school settings.

The decision is the latest in a line of Supreme Court rulings for religious plaintiffs. In another recent example, the court ruled that Maine can’t exclude religious schools from a program that offers tuition aid for private education, a decision that could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money.

In a dissent in Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the coach decision “sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion.” She was joined in her dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan.

That the court ruled for the coach is perhaps not surprising. In 2019, the court declined to take up the case at an early stage, but four of the court’s conservatives agreed that a lower court decision in favor of the school district was “troubling” for its “understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers.”

The case before the justices involved Joseph Kennedy, a Christian and former football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington. Kennedy started coaching at the school in 2008 and initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. But students started joining him, and over time he began to deliver a short, inspirational talk with religious references. Kennedy did that for years and led students in locker room prayers. The school district learned what he was doing in 2015 and asked him to stop.

Kennedy stopped leading students in prayer in the locker room and on the field but wanted to continue praying on the field himself, with students free to join if they wished. Concerned about being sued for violating students’ religious freedom rights, the school asked him to stop his practice of kneeling and praying while still “on duty” as a coach after the game. The school tried to work out a solution so Kennedy could pray privately before or after the game. When he continued to kneel and pray on the field, the school put him on paid leave.

Three justices on the court attended public high schools themselves while the rest attended Catholic schools.

The case is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418.

 

Well - there you have it.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...