Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

34 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

because  the  prayers  were  “quie[t]”  and  the  students  were
otherwise “occupied.”  Ante, at 26.  The record contradicts 
this narrative.  Even on the Court’s myopic framing of the 
facts, at two of the three games on which the Court focuses,
players  witnessed  student  peers  from  the  other  team  and 
other  authority  figures  surrounding  Kennedy  and  joining 
him in prayer.  The coercive pressures inherent in such a 
situation are obvious.  Moreover, Kennedy’s actual demand 
to the District was that he give “verbal” prayers specifically
at  the  midfield  position  where  he  traditionally  led  team 
prayers, and that students be allowed to join him “voluntar-
ily”  and  pray.  App.  64,  69–71.    Notably,  the  Court  today 
does  not  embrace  this  demand,  but  it  nonetheless  rejects
the District’s right to ensure that students were not pres-
sured to pray. 

To reiterate, the District did not argue, and neither court
below held, that “any visible religious conduct by a teacher 
or  coach  should  be  deemed  . . .  impermissibly  coercive  on 
students.”  Ante, at 28.  Nor has anyone contended that a 
coach may never visibly pray on the field.  The courts below 
simply recognized that Kennedy continued to initiate pray-
ers  visible  to  students,  while  still  on  duty  during  school 
events,  under  the  exact  same  circumstances  as  his  past
practice of leading student prayer.  It is unprecedented for 
the Court to hold that this conduct, taken as a whole, did 
not raise cognizable coercion concerns.  Importantly, noth-
ing  in  the  Court’s  opinion  should  be  read  as  calling  into
question  that  Kennedy’s  conduct  may  have  raised  other 
concerns regarding disruption of school events or misuse of 
school  facilities  that  would  have  separately  justified  em-
ployment action against Kennedy. 

* 

* 
The Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are 
equally integral in protecting religious freedom in our soci-
ety.  The first serves as “a promise from our government,” 

*