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

16 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

Opinion of the Court 

second  step  have  sometimes  considered  whether  an  em-
ployee’s speech interests are outweighed by “ ‘the interest of 
the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the
public services it performs through its employees.’ ”  Id., at 
417 (quoting Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568). 

Both sides ask us to employ at least certain aspects of this 
Pickering–Garcetti  framework  to  resolve  Mr.  Kennedy’s 
free speech claim.  They share additional common ground 
too.  They  agree  that  Mr.  Kennedy’s  speech  implicates  a 
matter  of  public  concern.  See  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  183; 
Brief  for  Respondent  44.  They  also  appear  to  accept,  at 
least for argument’s sake, that Mr. Kennedy’s speech does
not raise questions of academic freedom that may or may 
not  involve  “additional”  First  Amendment  “interests”  be-
yond those captured by this framework.  Garcetti, 547 U. S., 
at 425; see also Keyishian v.  Board of Regents of Univ. of 
State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967); Brief for Petitioner 
26, n. 2.  At the first step of the Pickering–Garcetti inquiry,
the  parties’  disagreement  thus  turns  out  to  center  on one 
question alone:  Did Mr. Kennedy offer his prayers in his
capacity as a private citizen, or did they amount to govern-
ment speech attributable to the District?  

Our cases offer some helpful guidance for resolving this 
question.  In Garcetti, the Court concluded that a prosecu-
tor’s internal memorandum to a supervisor was made “pur-
suant to [his] official duties,” and thus ineligible for First 
Amendment protection.  547 U. S., at 421.  In reaching this
conclusion, the Court relied on the fact that the prosecutor’s
speech “fulfill[ed] a responsibility to advise his supervisor 
about how best to proceed with a pending case.”  Ibid.  In 
other  words,  the  prosecutor’s  memorandum  was  govern-
ment speech because it was speech the government “itself
ha[d]  commissioned  or  created”  and  speech  the  employee
was expected to deliver in the course of carrying out his job. 
Id., at 422.