Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 66.0

26 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

political community writ large.’ ”  Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
Given this concern for the political community, it is un-
surprising that the Court has long prioritized endorsement 
concerns  in  the  context  of  public  education.
  See,  e.g., 
Santa Fe,  530  U. S.,  at  305;  Wallace,  472  U. S.,  at  60–61; 
Edwards, 482 U. S., at 578, 593; see also Lee, 505 U. S., at 
618–619  (Souter,  J.,  concurring)  (explaining  that  many  of 
the  Court’s  Establishment  Clause  holdings  in  the  school
context are concerned not with whether the policy in ques-
tion  “coerced  students  to  participate  in  prayer”  but  with
whether  it  “ ‘convey[ed]  a  message  of  state  approval  of 
prayer  activities  in  the  public  schools’ ”  (quoting  Wallace, 
472 U. S., at 61)).4  No subsequent decisions in other con-
texts, including the cases about monuments and legislative 
meetings on which the Court relies, have so much as ques-
tioned  the  application  of  this  core  Establishment  Clause
concern  in  the  context  of  public  schools.    In fact,  Town  of 
Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. 565, which held a prayer dur-
ing a town meeting permissible, specifically distinguished 
Lee because Lee considered the Establishment Clause in the 
context of schools.  572 U. S., at 590 (plurality opinion).

Paying heed to these precedents would not “ ‘purge from
the  public  sphere’  anything  an  observer  could  reasonably
infer endorses” religion.  Ante, at 22.  To the contrary, the 
Court has recognized that “there will be instances when re-
ligious values, religious practices, and religious persons will 
have some interaction with the public schools and their stu-
dents.”  Lee,  505  U. S.,  at  598–599.    These  instances,  the 
Court has said, are “often questions of accommodat[ing]” re-
ligious practices to the degree possible while respecting the 

—————— 

4 The Court attempts to recast Lee and Santa Fe as solely concerning 
coercion, ante, at 29–30, but both cases emphasized that it was important
to avoid appearances of “ ‘state endorsement of prayer in public schools.’ ”  
Santa Fe, 530 U. S., at 308; see Lee, 505 U. S., at 590 (finding that the
“degree of school involvement” indicated that the “prayers bore the im-
print of the State”).