Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 62

22 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

at 587 (noting that a school official’s choice to integrate a 
prayer  is  “attributable  to  the  State”).    As  the  Court  ex-
plains, see ante, at 13–14, the parties agree (and I therefore
assume) that for the purposes of Kennedy’s claim, the bur-
den is on the District to establish that its policy prohibiting 
Kennedy’s public prayers was the least restrictive means of 
furthering a compelling state interest.  Church of Lukumi 
Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). 

Here,  the  District’s  directive  prohibiting  Kennedy’s
demonstrative speech at the 50-yard line was narrowly tai-
lored to avoid an Establishment Clause violation.  The Dis-
trict’s suspension of Kennedy followed a long history.  The 
last  three  games  proved  that  Kennedy  did  not  intend  to 
pray silently, but to thrust the District into incorporating a 
religious ceremony into its events, as he invited others to 
join his prayer and anticipated in his communications with
the District that students would want to join as well.  No-
tably, the District repeatedly sought to work with Kennedy 
to  develop  an  accommodation  to  permit  him  to  engage  in 
religious exercise during or after his game-related respon-
sibilities.  Kennedy, however, ultimately refused to respond 
to the District’s suggestions and declined to communicate 
with the District, except through media appearances.  Be-
cause  the  District’s  valid  Establishment  Clause  concerns 
satisfy strict scrutiny, Kennedy’s free exercise claim fails as
well. 

III 
Despite  the  overwhelming  precedents  establishing  that 
school  officials  leading  prayer  violates  the  Establishment 
Clause,  the  Court  today  holds  that  Kennedy’s  midfield 
prayer  practice  did  not  violate  the  Establishment  Clause.
This  decision  rests  on  an  erroneous  understanding  of  the 
Religion  Clauses. 
It  also  disregards  the  balance  this 
Court’s  cases  strike  among  the  rights  conferred  by  the 
Clauses.  The Court relies on an assortment of pluralities,