Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

14 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering 
religion to students as the public watched.  A school district 
is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Estab-
lishment Clause prohibits it from doing so. 

A 
The  Establishment  Clause  prohibits  States  from  adopt-
ing laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”  Amdt. 
1; see Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 49 (1985) (recogniz-
ing  the  Clause’s  incorporation  against  the  States).    The 
First Amendment’s next Clause prohibits the government
from making any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Taken  together,  these  two  Clauses  (the  Religion  Clauses)
express the view, foundational to our constitutional system, 
“that religious beliefs and religious expression are too pre-
cious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State.”  Lee 
v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 589 (1992).  Instead, “preserva-
tion and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a
responsibility  and  a  choice  committed  to  the  private
sphere,”  which  has  the  “freedom  to  pursue  that  mission.” 
Ibid. 

The Establishment Clause protects this freedom by “com-
mand[ing] a separation of church and state.”  Cutter v. Wil-
kinson, 544 U. S. 709, 719 (2005).  At its core, this means 
forbidding  “sponsorship,  financial  support,  and  active  in-
volvement  of  the  sovereign  in  religious  activity.”    Walz  v. 
Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 668 (1970). 
In the context of public schools, it means that a State cannot 
use “its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths
or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals.” 
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 
71, Champaign Cty., 333 U. S. 203, 211 (1948).

Indeed,  “[t]he  Court  has  been  particularly  vigilant  in 
monitoring  compliance  with  the  Establishment  Clause  in
elementary and secondary schools.”  Edwards v. Aguillard, 
482 U. S. 578, 583–584 (1987).  The reasons motivating this