Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

26 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

Opinion of the Court 

prayer while presenting locker-room speeches to students. 
That tradition predated Mr. Kennedy at the school.  App.
170.  And he willingly ended it, as the District has acknowl-
edged.  Id., at 77, 170.  He also willingly ended his practice 
of  postgame  religious  talks  with  his  team.    Id.,  at  70,  77, 
170–172.  The only prayer Mr. Kennedy sought to continue
was the kind he had “started out doing” at the beginning of 
his tenure—the prayer he gave alone.  Id., at 293–294.  He 
made clear that he could pray “while the kids were doing
the  fight  song”  and  “take  a  knee  by  [him]self  and  give
thanks and continue on.”  Id., at 294.  Mr. Kennedy even
considered it “acceptable” to say his “prayer while the play-
ers  were  walking  to  the  locker  room”  or  “bus,”  and  then 
catch up with his team.  Id., at 280, 282; see also id., at 59 
(proposing the team leave the field for the prayer).  In short, 
Mr. Kennedy did not seek to direct any prayers to students
or require anyone else to participate.  His plan was to wait
to  pray  until  athletes  were  occupied,  and  he  “told  every-
body” that’s what he wished “to do.”  Id., at 292.  It was for 
three  prayers  of  this  sort  alone  in  October  2015  that  the 
District suspended him.  See Parts I–B and I–C, supra. 

Naturally,  Mr.  Kennedy’s  proposal  to  pray  quietly  by 
himself on the field would have meant some people would 
have seen his religious exercise.  Those close at hand might 
have heard him too.  But learning how to tolerate speech or 
prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a plu-
ralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant 
citizenry.”  Lee, 505 U. S., at 590.  This Court has long rec-
ognized as well that “secondary school students are mature 
enough . . . to understand that a school does not endorse,” 
let  alone  coerce  them  to  participate  in,  “speech  that  it
merely  permits  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis.”    Mergens, 
496 U. S., at 250 (plurality opinion).  Of course, some will 
take offense to certain forms of speech or prayer they are
sure to encounter in a society where those activities enjoy 
such  robust  constitutional  protection.    But  “[o]ffense . . .