Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 24

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

cialize, or engage in any manner of secular activities.  Oth-
ers working for the District were free to engage briefly in 
personal speech and activity.  App. 205; see Part I–B, supra. 
That Mr. Kennedy chose to use the same time to pray does
not transform his speech into government speech.  To hold 
differently would be to treat religious expression as second-
class  speech  and  eviscerate  this  Court’s  repeated  promise 
that  teachers  do  not  “shed  their  constitutional  rights  to
freedom  of  speech  or  expression  at  the  schoolhouse  gate.” 
Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506. 

Of  course,  acknowledging  that  Mr.  Kennedy’s  prayers
represented his own private speech does not end the mat-
ter.  So far, we have recognized only that Mr. Kennedy has
carried his threshold burden.  Under the Pickering–Garcetti 
framework,  a  second  step  remains  where  the  government
may seek to prove that its interests as employer outweigh 
even an employee’s private speech on a matter of public con-
cern.  See Lane, 573 U. S., at 236, 242.2 

IV 
Whether one views the case through the lens of the Free
Exercise  or  Free  Speech  Clause,  at  this  point  the  burden
shifts  to  the  District.  Under  the  Free  Exercise  Clause,  a 
government  entity  normally  must  satisfy  at  least  “strict
scrutiny,”  showing  that  its  restrictions  on  the  plaintiff ’s 
protected  rights  serve  a  compelling  interest  and  are  nar-
rowly tailored to that end.  See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 533; 
n. 1, supra.  A similar standard generally obtains under the
Free Speech Clause.  See Reed, 576 U. S., at 171.  The Dis-
trict, however, asks us to apply to Mr. Kennedy’s claims the 

—————— 

2 Because our analysis and the parties’ concessions lead to the conclu-
sion that Mr. Kennedy’s prayer constituted private speech on a matter of
public concern, we do not decide whether the Free Exercise Clause may 
sometimes demand a different analysis at the first step of the Pickering– 
Garcetti framework.