Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 29

24 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

Opinion of the Court 

572 U. S., at 577 (quoting School Dist. of Abington Town-
ship  v.  Schempp,  374  U. S.  203,  294  (1963)  (Brennan,  J., 
concurring)).  An analysis focused on original meaning and 
history, this Court has stressed, has long represented the 
rule rather than some “ ‘exception’ ” within the “Court’s Es-
tablishment Clause jurisprudence.”  572 U. S., at 575; see 
American Legion, 588 U. S., at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip 
op.,  at  25);  Torcaso  v.  Watkins,  367  U. S.  488,  490  (1961) 
(analyzing certain historical elements of religious establish-
ments);  McGowan  v.  Maryland,  366  U. S.  420,  437–440 
(1961)  (analyzing  Sunday  closing  laws  by  looking  to  their 
“place . . . in the First Amendment’s history”); Walz v. Tax 
Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 680 (1970) (an-
alyzing the “history and uninterrupted practice” of church 
tax exemptions).  The District and the Ninth Circuit erred 
by failing to heed this guidance. 

B 
Perhaps sensing that the primary theory it pursued be-
low  rests  on  a  mistaken  understanding  of  the  Establish-
ment Clause, the District offers a backup argument in this
Court.  It still contends that its Establishment Clause con-
cerns  trump  Mr.  Kennedy’s  free  exercise  and  free  speech 
rights.  But the District now seeks to supply different rea-
soning for that result.  Now, it says, it was justified in sup-
pressing Mr. Kennedy’s religious activity because otherwise
it would have been guilty of coercing students to pray.  See 
Brief for Respondent 34–37.  And, the District says, coerc-
ing worship amounts to an Establishment Clause violation
on anyone’s account of the Clause’s original meaning. 

As it turns out, however, there is a pretty obvious reason 
why the Ninth Circuit did not adopt this theory in proceed-
ings below:  The evidence cannot sustain it.  To be sure, this 
Court  has  long  held  that  government  may  not,  consistent
with  a  historically  sensitive  understanding  of  the  Estab-