Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

20 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

a football game, in the context of an established history of 
the coach inviting student involvement in prayer, is to exact 
precisely this price from students. 

C 

As the Court explains, see ante, at 15, Kennedy did not 
“shed [his] constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate” 
while on duty as a coach.  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent 
Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969).  Consti-
tutional  rights,  however,  are  not  absolutes.    Rights  often
conflict and balancing of interests is often required to pro-
tect  the  separate  rights  at  issue.    See  Dobbs  v.  Jackson 
Women’s  Health  Organization,  597  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2022) 
(slip op., at 12) (BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dis-
senting) (noting that “the presence of countervailing inter-
ests  . . .  is  what  ma[kes]”  a  constitutional  question  “hard,
and what require[s] balancing”).

The particular tensions at issue in this case, between the
speech interests of the government and its employees and 
between public institutions’ religious neutrality and private
individuals’  religious  exercise,  are  far  from  novel.  This 
Court’s  settled  precedents  offer  guidance  to  assist  courts, 
governments, and the public in navigating these tensions. 
Under these precedents, the District’s interest in avoiding
an  Establishment  Clause  violation  justified  both  its  time
and place restrictions on Kennedy’s speech and his exercise
of religion.

First,  as  to  Kennedy’s  free  speech  claim,  Kennedy  “ac-
cept[ed] certain limitations” on his freedom of speech when 
he accepted government employment.  Garcetti v. Ceballos, 
547 U. S. 410, 418 (2006).  The Court has recognized that
“[g]overnment  employers,  like  private  employers,  need  a
significant  degree  of  control  over  their  employees’  words 
and actions” to ensure “the efficient provision of public ser-
vices.”  Ibid.  Case law instructs balancing “the interests of
the  teacher,  as  a  citizen,  in  commenting  upon  matters  of