Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 17

12 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

Opinion of the Court 

(slip op., at 4–5, 13); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 
171 (2015); Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 418 (2006); 
Church  of  Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S. 
520,  546  (1993);  Sherbert  v.  Verner,  374  U. S. 398,  403 
(1963).  We begin by examining whether Mr. Kennedy has 
discharged  his  burdens,  first  under  the  Free  Exercise 
Clause, then under the Free Speech Clause. 

A 
The Free Exercise Clause provides that “Congress shall
make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
Amdt. 1.  This Court has held the Clause applicable to the 
States  under  the  terms  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 
Cantwell  v.  Connecticut,  310  U. S.  296,  303  (1940).    The 
Clause protects not only the right to harbor religious beliefs
inwardly and secretly.  It does perhaps its most important
work  by  protecting  the  ability  of  those  who  hold  religious
beliefs  of  all  kinds  to  live  out  their  faiths  in  daily  life
through “the performance of (or abstention from) physical
acts.”  Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. 
v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877 (1990). 

Under this Court’s precedents, a plaintiff may carry the
burden of proving a free exercise violation in various ways, 
including  by  showing  that  a  government  entity  has  bur-
dened  his  sincere  religious  practice  pursuant  to  a  policy 
that is not “neutral” or “generally applicable.”  Id., at 879– 
881.  Should a plaintiff make a showing like that, this Court 
will  find  a  First  Amendment  violation  unless  the  govern-
ment  can  satisfy  “strict  scrutiny”  by  demonstrating  its
course was justified by a compelling state interest and was
narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest.  Lukumi, 508 
U. S., at 546.1 

—————— 

1 A plaintiff may also prove a free exercise violation by showing that 
“official expressions of hostility” to religion accompany laws or policies 
burdening religious exercise; in cases like that we have “set aside” such
policies without further inquiry.  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado