Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

31 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

students to do any more than listen silently to prayers, and 
some  did  not  even  formally  require  students  to  listen,  in-
stead providing that attendance was not mandatory.  See 
Santa Fe, 530 U. S., at 296–298; Lee, 505 U. S., at 593; Wal-
lace,  472  U. S.,  at  40;  School  Dist.  of  Abington  Township, 
374 U. S., at 205; Engel, 370 U. S., at 422.  Nevertheless, 
the  Court  concluded  that  the  practices  were  coercive  as  a 
constitutional matter. 

Today’s Court quotes the Lee Court’s remark that endur-
ing others’ speech is “ ‘part of learning how to live in a plu-
ralistic  society.’ ”    Ante,  at  26  (quoting  Lee,  505  U. S.,  at 
590).  The Lee Court, however, expressly concluded, in the 
very same paragraph, that “[t]his argument cannot prevail”
in the school-prayer context because the notion that being
subject to a “brief ” prayer in school is acceptable “overlooks 
a  fundamental  dynamic  of  the  Constitution”:  its  “specific
prohibition  on  . . .  state  intervention  in  religious  affairs.” 
Id., at 591; see also id., at 594 (“[T]he government may no
more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may 
use more direct means”).7 

The  Court  also  distinguishes  Santa Fe  because  Ken-
nedy’s prayers “were not publicly broadcast or recited to a 
captive audience.”  Ante, at 30.  This misses the point.  In 
Santa Fe, a student council chaplain delivered a prayer over 
the public-address system before each varsity football game 
of the season.  530 U. S., at 294.  Students were not required 
as a general matter to attend the games, but “cheerleaders,
members  of  the  band,  and,  of  course,  the  team  members 

—————— 

7 The  Court  further  claims  that  Lee  is  distinguishable  because  it  in-
volved  prayer  at  an  event  in  which  the  school  had  “ ‘in  every  practical
sense compelled attendance and participation in [a] religious exercise.’ ” 
Ante, at 29 (quoting Lee, 505 U. S., at 598).  The Court in Lee, however, 
recognized  expressly  that  attendance  at  the  graduation  ceremony  was 
not mandatory and that students who attended only had to remain silent
during and after the prayers.  Id., at 583, 593.