Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 15

10 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

Opinion of the Court 

with communicating with students, was speech as a govern-
ment  employee.”  991  F. 3d,  at  1015.  Like  the  District 
Court, the Ninth Circuit further reasoned that, “even if we 
were  to  assume  . . .  that  Kennedy  spoke  as  a  private  citi-
zen,” the District had an “adequate justification” for its ac-
tions.  Id., at 1016.  According to the court, “Kennedy’s on-
field religious activity,” coupled with what the court called
“his pugilistic efforts to generate publicity in order to gain 
approval of those on-field religious activities,” were enough 
to lead an “objective observer” to conclude that the District 
“endorsed Kennedy’s religious activity by not stopping the 
practice.”  Id.,  at  1017–1018.  And  that,  the  court  held, 
would amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause. 
Ibid. 

The Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Kennedy’s free exercise
claim for similar reasons.  The District “concede[d]” that its
policy that led to Mr. Kennedy’s suspension was not “neu-
tral and generally applicable” and instead “restrict[ed] Ken-
nedy’s  religious  conduct  because  the  conduct  [was]  reli-
gious.”  Id., at 1020.  Still, the court ruled, the District “had 
a compelling state interest to avoid violating the Establish-
ment Clause,” and its suspension was narrowly tailored to 
vindicate that interest.  Id., at 1020–1021. 

Later, the Ninth Circuit denied a petition to rehear the
case en banc over the dissents of 11 judges.  4 F. 4th 910, 
911 (2021).  Among other things, the dissenters argued that 
the panel erred by holding that a failure to discipline Mr. 
Kennedy would have led the District to violate the Estab-
lishment Clause.  Several dissenters noted that the panel’s
analysis  rested  on  Lemon  v.  Kurtzman,  403  U. S.  602 
(1971), and its progeny for the proposition that the Estab-
lishment Clause is implicated whenever a hypothetical rea-
sonable observer could conclude the government endorses
religion.  4  F.  4th,  at  945–947  (opinion  of  R.  Nelson,  J.).
These  dissenters  argued  that  this  Court  has  long  since