Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

8 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

The District further noted that “[d]uring the time following
completion of the game, until players are released to their 
parents or otherwise allowed to leave the event, Mr. Ken-
nedy,  like  all  coaches,  is  clearly  on  duty  and  paid  to  con-
tinue supervision of students.”  Id., at 79. 

The  District  stated  that  it  had  no  objection  to  Kennedy
returning to the stadium when he was off duty to pray at
the 50-yard line, nor with Kennedy praying while on duty 
if it did not interfere with his job duties or suggest the Dis-
trict’s endorsement of religion.  The District explained that
its establishment concerns were motivated by the specific
facts  at  issue,  because  engaging  in  prayer  on  the  50-yard 
line immediately after the game finished would appear to
be an extension of Kennedy’s “prior, long-standing and well-
known history of leading students in prayer” on the 50-yard 
line  after  games.  Id.,  at  81.  The  District  therefore  reaf-
firmed its prior directives to Kennedy.

On October 16, after playing of the game had concluded,
Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, and as ad-
vertised, knelt to pray while most BHS players were sing-
ing  the  school’s  fight  song.  He  quickly  was  joined  by 
coaches  and  players  from  the  opposing  team.  Television 
news cameras surrounded the group.2  Members of the pub-
lic  rushed  the  field  to  join  Kennedy,  jumping  fences  to 
access the field and knocking over student band members. 
After  the  game,  the  District  received  calls  from  Satanists
who “ ‘intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after foot-
ball games if others were allowed to.’ ”  Id., at 181.  To secure 
the field and enable subsequent games to continue safely,
the District was forced to make security arrangements with 

—————— 

2 The  Court  describes  the  events  of  the  October  16  game  as  having
“spurred media coverage of Mr. Kennedy’s case.”  Ante, at 5.  In fact, the 
District Court found that Kennedy himself generated the media coverage 
by publicizing his dispute with the District in his initial Facebook posting 
and in his media appearances before the October 16 game.  443 F. Supp. 
3d 1223, 1230 (WD Wash. 2020).