Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

over another.  It cannot even show that they are at odds.  In 
truth, there is no conflict between the constitutional com-
mands before us.  There is only the “mere shadow” of a con-
flict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Es-
tablishment Clause.  Schempp, 374 U. S., at 308 (Goldberg, 
J., concurring).  And in no world may a government entity’s 
concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify ac-
tual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.
See,  e.g.,  Rosenberger,  515  U. S.,  at  845–846;  Good  News 
Club,  533  U. S.,  at  112–119;  Lamb’s  Chapel  v.  Center 
Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 394–395 
(1993); Widmar, 454 U. S., at 270–275.8 

V 

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life 
in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions
take  place  in  a  sanctuary  or  on  a  field,  and  whether  they 
manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.  Here, 
a government entity sought to punish an individual for en-
gaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance dou-
bly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses 
of the First Amendment.  And the only meaningful justifi-
cation  the  government  offered  for  its  reprisal  rested  on  a 
mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress 

—————— 

8 Failing  under  its  coercion  theory,  the  District  offers  still  another 
backup  argument.    It  contends  that  it  had  to  suppress  Mr.  Kennedy’s 
protected First Amendment activity to ensure order at Bremerton foot-
ball games.  See also post, at 2, 8–9, 11, 34–35 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissent-
ing).  But the District never raised concerns along these lines in its con-
temporaneous correspondence with Mr. Kennedy.  And unsurprisingly, 
neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit invoked this rationale to 
justify the District’s actions.  Government “justification[s]” for interfer-
ing with First Amendment rights “must be genuine, not hypothesized or
invented post hoc in response to litigation.”  United States v. Virginia, 
518  U. S.  515,  533  (1996).    Nor  under  our  Constitution  does  protected 
speech or religious exercise readily give way to a “heckler’s veto.”  Good 
News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 119 (2001); supra, at 
22–23.