Justice Sotomayor poses bizarre question as SCOTUS hears arguments for school coach fired for praying

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Joseph Kennedy, a junior varsity head coach from Washington state’s Bremerton School District who was fired in 2015 after praying at the 50-yard line after games.

The justices will reportedly be looking at two separate issues in the case before issuing their ruling. First, whether the coach praying by himself within view of others including students amounted to unprotected “government speech,” and second, if it is not, in fact, unprotected “government speech,” would it still present issues under the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause?

Justice Elena Kagan asked Paul Clement, the attorney representing Kennedy, whether it would be inappropriate for a teacher to recite a prayer in the classroom. He responded that it would, if the teacher was doing so audibly in the presence of students, or if it was taking place during the instructional period, but not if it was private and silent. The question came as the result of a discussion about whether the prayers had come during the time when Kennedy was carrying out his responsibilities as a coach.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a more shocking question, wondering if a coach praying on the field while wearing Nazi symbolism would also be appropriate. Clement made clear that he wasn’t aware of the existence of such a religion, though admitted that it could acceptably be banned as it was not a direct expression of any faithful activity, and therefore wouldn’t technically qualify as religious censorship.

The more conservative-leaning justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito wondered if the prayer was like any other protected expressions of speech allowed on school grounds. For instance, Alito asked if someone would be punished for having a Ukrainian flag, and Kavanaugh wondered if the school would be able to “fire someone making the sign of the cross before a game?”

Justice Clarence Thomas used a topical hypothetical to put the situation into perspective.

“If the coach, instead of taking a knee for prayer, took a knee during the national anthem because of moral opposition to racism, how would your school district respond? Would that be government speech?” he asked Richard Katskee, the attorney representing the school district.

Katskee concurred that it would be “government” speech given the time and place, as well as how any reasonable person may interpret the actions.

Thomas then referred back to the case at hand, asking how it’s possible for the action to be considered “government” speech if the school had already voiced objections to the action, making it clear they don’t side with it and thus taking away any notion of even tacit endorsement.

Kennedy claims that the termination was a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, while the school district maintains claims that the Constitution is actually the reason Kennedy’s prayers are an issue. They say that his praying was coercive to students who participated in the prayer with him.

“Mr. Kennedy’s actions pressured them to pray, and also divided the coaching staff, sparked vitriol against school officials, and led to the field being stormed and students getting knocked down. When Mr. Kennedy repeatedly ignored sincere efforts to accommodate personal prayers, what was the district to do?” asked Katskee, who is representing the school district.

Meanwhile, Kennedy’s lawyer is confident that the firing was a constitutional violation because the school only fired his client as a result of the actions being religious in nature.

Kennedy says that his tradition of praying after the games was something that he started to do by himself, but over time students began joining him. Eventually, he began to give motivational speeches, according to court documents, that contained religious themes and connotations. The school district warned Kennedy to stop after an opposing team’s coach brought it to their attention, but he wouldn’t be deterred. While he did temporarily pause his actions, he eventually resumed after notifying the school.

The situation gathered quite a bit of media attention, and this caused many people to attend games as well as the post-game prayer. The school district claims that the number of people walking onto the field following games became a safety concern. They offered to allow Kennedy to pray in a separate location or to resume his 50-yard line prayers once all other people had left, but he refused. Two games later, he was placed on leave from the school.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Sierra Marlee

Comment

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Subscribe
Notify of
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
will Kane
Member
will Kane
22 days ago

This is what the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state. This should not even be heard. The government has no place in religion.

DavNeu70
Trusted Member
DavNeu70
22 days ago

Since the last loser communist democrat and racist activist was put on the court it is now more of a joke and credibility is out the door!

cadiyn
Member
cadiyn
23 days ago

So, now the SCOTUS is going tell us when we can and can’t talk to God!🙄

THE TRUTH
Active Member
THE TRUTH
23 days ago

Sub-human DUMB OLD C U N Ts are ALL WASTES OF FLESH, OXYGEN AND REAL ESTATE! (that would be ALL OF THEM!)

the only good democRAT is a DEAD DEMOCrat

Rich4265
Noble Member
Rich4265
23 days ago

She is not fit to be on the Supreme Court. If you don’t like the 1st amendment either pass a Constitutional Amendment to change it or accept it. We are in trouble because the Supreme Court has disregarded the Constitution’s specific language ever since the disgusting Earl Warren Court.

Last edited 23 days ago by Rich4265
AmericaAhkbar
Noble Member
AmericaAhkbar
23 days ago

Sotomayor, the wise latina . . .😉

Olen
Noble Member
Olen
23 days ago
Reply to  AmericaAhkbar

Otherwise

THE TRUTH
Active Member
THE TRUTH
23 days ago
Reply to  AmericaAhkbar

Brainless BEENAH is more correct!

Truthscaler
Active Member
Truthscaler
23 days ago

Yashuah will be happy that the people he designed through Adam and EVe now use himasaFederalagent.

Latest Articles