Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion)

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion is issued. 
The syllabus  constitutes no part  of  the  opinion  of  the Court but has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–418.  Argued April 25, 2022—Decided June 27, 2022 

Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach in 
the Bremerton School District after he knelt at midfield after games to 
offer a quiet personal prayer.  Mr. Kennedy sued in federal court, al-
leging that the District’s actions violated the First Amendment’s Free 
Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.  He also moved for a preliminary 
injunction requiring the District to reinstate him.  The District Court 
denied that motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  After the parties 
engaged in discovery, they filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  
The District Court found that the “ ‘sole reason’ ” for the District’s de-
cision to suspend Mr. Kennedy was its perceived “risk of constitutional 
liability”  under  the  Establishment  Clause  for  his  “religious  conduct” 
after three games in October 2015.  443 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1231.  The 
District  Court  granted  summary  judgment  to  the  District  and  the 
Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Ninth Circuit denied a petition to rehear 
the  case  en  banc  over  the  dissents  of  11  judges.    4  F.  4th  910,  911. 
Several dissenters argued that the panel applied a flawed understand-
ing of the Establishment Clause reflected in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 
U. S.  602,  and  that  this  Court  has  abandoned  Lemon’s  “ahistorical, 
atextual” approach to discerning Establishment Clause violations.  4 
F. 4th, at 911, and n. 3.

Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amend-
ment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance 
from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor per-
mits the government to suppress such religious expression.  Pp. 11–32. 
(a) Mr. Kennedy contends that the District’s conduct violated both
the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. 
Where the Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercises, the Free 
Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for expressive religious