Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

By contrast, in Lane a public employer sought to termi-
nate an employee after he testified at a criminal trial about 
matters involving his government employment.  573 U. S., 
at 233.  The Court held that the employee’s speech was pro-
tected by the First Amendment.  Id., at 231.  In doing so,
the Court held that the fact the speech touched on matters
related to public employment was not enough to render it
government  speech.  Id.,  at  239–240.    Instead,  the  Court 
explained, the “critical question . . . is whether the speech 
at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s
duties.”  Id.,  at  240.  It  is  an  inquiry  this  Court  has  said 
should  be  undertaken  “practical[ly],”  rather  than  with  a 
blinkered focus on the terms of some formal and capacious
written job description.  Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 424.  To pro-
ceed  otherwise  would  be  to  allow  public  employers  to  use
“excessively broad job descriptions” to subvert the Consti-
tution’s protections.  Ibid. 

Applying these lessons here, it seems clear to us that Mr.
Kennedy  has  demonstrated  that  his  speech  was  private 
speech,  not  government  speech.  When  Mr.  Kennedy  ut-
tered the three prayers that resulted in his suspension, he
was not engaged in speech “ordinarily within the scope” of 
his duties as a coach.  Lane, 573 U. S., at 240.  He did not 
speak pursuant to government policy.  He was not seeking 
to convey a government-created message.  He was not in-
structing  players,  discussing  strategy,  encouraging  better
on-field  performance,  or  engaged  in  any  other  speech  the 
District paid him to produce as a coach.  See Part I–B, su-
pra.    Simply  put:   Mr.  Kennedy’s  prayers  did  not  “ow[e
their] existence” to Mr. Kennedy’s responsibilities as a pub-
lic employee.  Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 421. 

The timing and circumstances of Mr. Kennedy’s prayers
confirm the point.  During the postgame period when these
prayers occurred, coaches were free to attend briefly to per-
sonal matters—everything from checking sports scores on 
their phones to greeting friends and family in the stands.