Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

lishment  Clause,  “make  a  religious  observance  compul-
sory.”  Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952).  Gov-
ernment  “may  not  coerce  anyone  to  attend  church,”  ibid., 
nor may it force citizens to engage in “a formal religious ex-
ercise,”  Lee  v.  Weisman,  505  U. S.  577,  589  (1992).    No 
doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the fore-
most  hallmarks  of  religious  establishments  the  framers 
sought  to  prohibit  when  they  adopted  the  First  Amend-
ment.5    Members  of  this  Court  have  sometimes  disagreed 
on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light 
of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause.  Com-
pare Lee, 505 U. S., at 593, with id., at 640–641 (Scalia, J.,
dissenting).  But  in  this  case  Mr.  Kennedy’s  private  reli-
gious  exercise  did  not  come  close  to  crossing  any  line  one
might  imagine  separating  protected  private  expression 
from impermissible government coercion. 

Begin with the District’s own contemporaneous descrip-
tion of the facts.  In its correspondence with Mr. Kennedy, 
the  District  never  raised  coercion  concerns.    To  the  con-
trary, the District conceded in a public 2015 document that
there was “no evidence that students [were] directly coerced 
to pray with Kennedy.”  App. 105.  This is consistent with 
Mr. Kennedy’s account too.  He has repeatedly stated that 
he “never coerced, required, or asked any student to pray,”
and that he never “told any student that it was important 
that they participate in any religious activity.”  Id., at 170. 
Consider,  too,  the  actual  requests  Mr.  Kennedy  made.
The District did not discipline Mr. Kennedy for engaging in 
—————— 

5 See,  e.g.,  Lee  v.  Weisman,  505  U. S.  577,  640–642  (1992)  (Scalia,  J. 
dissenting); Shurtleff, 596 U. S., at ___–___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip
op., at 10–13) (discussing coercion and certain other historical hallmarks
of an established religion); 1 Annals of Cong. 730–731 (1789) (Madison 
explaining that the First Amendment aimed to prevent one or multiple
sects from “establish[ing] a religion to which they would compel others 
to conform”); M. McConnell, Establishment and Disestablishment at the 
Founding,  Part  I:  Establishment  of  Religion,  44 Wm.  &  Mary  L.  Rev. 
2105, 2144–2146 (2003).