Update on Religious Liberty Case

[smac97]

Last June we discussed the story of Joseph Kennedy, a public high school football coach who was fired for praying after football games: Another SCOTUS decision on religious liberty.

An update:

Quote

Joseph Kennedy, a high school assistant football coach fired eight years ago for praying on the field with students, returned to his old position and will receive a $1.78 million settlement.

I am glad to hear this.  There needs to be some real accountability when civil rights are violated.

Quote

Board members of the Bremerton School District in Washington voted last week to approve the settlement, which will cover attorney fees incurred by Kennedy in the landmark legal battle that reached the Supreme Court last year. Justices ruled that the public high school violated the First Amendment by placing Kennedy on administrative leave in response to his prayer.

Hmm.  I wonder how much of the $1.7M is for "attorney fees incurred by Kennedy."  I suspect . . . much.

Quote

Kennedy, a veteran of the Marine Corps, started a tradition of kneeling and praying after football games after he was employed by the school district in 2008. Some students later volunteered to join their coach; a school administrator raised the issue with Kennedy in 2015 after an opposing team complained, leading to Kennedy’s placement on administrative leave.

“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.”

It was wonderful to read this last June, and to hear it again today.

Quote

Bremerton School District vowed to comply with the Supreme Court decision but said in a statement that officials “offered repeatedly” to accommodate Kennedy’s desire to pray “as long as he was not delivering prayers to students or coercing students to join him.” Board members added that they “look forward to moving past the distraction” of the legal battle.

That's actually a good idea.  Kennedy won.  He has his job back.  Hopefully lessons have been learned.  Bremerton should move on.

Quote

Kennedy was reinstated to his position last week; court documents said that Bremerton School District “shall not interfere with or prohibit Kennedy from offering a prayer” consistent with the decision from the Supreme Court and cannot “retaliate against or take any future adverse employment action against Kennedy” for conduct in alignment with the order.

The affirmation from the Supreme Court last summer was the latest of several favorable rulings for religious liberty in the United States in recent years. Justices issued another landmark opinion in the fall of 2020 in response to a lawsuit filed by Roman Catholic and Jewish organizations in New York challenging restrictive public health mandates with limited religious services.

“Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available,” Gorsuch wrote. “It is time, past time, to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”

Yes, that was another good victory for religious liberty.

Quote

Officials in California agreed after another Supreme Court opinion to settle lawsuits from Grace Community Church for a combined $800,000. “We know that there is no circumstance that can cause the church to close,” Pastor John MacArthur said in a letter to the authorities. “The church is not only a building but is the bride of Christ and exists to proclaim the truth.”

Very cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hopefully someone's googling skills are better than mine: How can we read the dissenting opinion?

[helix]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hopefully someone's googling skills are better than mine: How can we read the dissenting opinion?

Here, starts on page 41: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

For the majority opinion, I thought Alito's summary was all that was needed:

"The expression at issue in this case is unlike that in any
of our prior cases involving the free-speech rights of public
employees. Petitioner’s expression occurred while at work
but during a time when a brief lull in his duties apparently
gave him a few free moments to engage in private activities.
When he engaged in this expression, he acted in a purely
private capacity. The Court does not decide what standard
applies to such expression under the Free Speech Clause
but holds only that retaliation for this expression cannot be
justified based on any of the standards discussed. On that
understanding, I join the opinion in full."

But I tend to like clear legal opinions that can be summarized quickly. I had a hard time finding any quick easy summary in the dissent.

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by helix

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

public high school football coach who was fired for praying after football games

That is debatable.  He claims he was fired for that reason.  Iirc, the school claimed they had other reasons.

Quote

Kennedy was reinstated to his position last week

My memory is he had moved out of state and hadn’t shown up for several games even when he had the job, so I am wondering if he will actually go back now.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, helix said:

Here, starts on page 41: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

For the majority opinion, I thought Alito's summary was all that was needed:

"The expression at issue in this case is unlike that in any
of our prior cases involving the free-speech rights of public
employees. Petitioner’s expression occurred while at work
but during a time when a brief lull in his duties apparently
gave him a few free moments to engage in private activities.
When he engaged in this expression, he acted in a purely
private capacity. The Court does not decide what standard
applies to such expression under the Free Speech Clause
but holds only that retaliation for this expression cannot be
justified based on any of the standards discussed. On that
understanding, I join the opinion in full."

The bolded section is a complete falsehood.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

That is debatable.  He claims he was fired for that reason.  Iirc, the school claimed they had other reasons.

My memory is he had moved out of state and hadn’t shown up for several games even when he had the job, so I am wondering if he will actually go back now.

Nehor summarized how the school described the incidents here.  If the school was accurate, they were not private prayers in the sense he intended to be alone and unheard when he said them.  Not inherently problematic, but if one is doing this while instructing children, it could be easily understood to be part of the teaching by the children and not more like they met their teacher in a restaurant and saw him praying over a meal (which he should have the right to do, imo),

 

[Calm]

And here is the thread reporting on Kennedy’s eagerness or lack thereof to get back to coaching  the kids:

A 

[helix]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The bolded section is a complete falsehood.

The bolded section is correct. Ever since this case came out, people have been glibly saying the Supreme Court majority just can't do basic reading or understanding, as if they're Neanderthals incapable of understanding simple facts.

The Supreme Court justices are a bit smarter than that.

The coach got rightly punished for engaging in religious activities while on the clock. So he hatched a plan. Between the end of the game and the showers, there is a lull. People are heading home, some people are calling family, others get on the phone and chat about politics, whatever. It's basically a break from work.

The majority correctly pointed out that if all other school employees could do non-work activities during this break time, then this coach could go onto the field, kneel down, say nothing, then wait until the break is over.  After the break was over, he was responsible for making sure the gym locker room emptied out and no student got left behind at night.

In short, the majority said if there is a break at work and others are free to engage in non-work chatter, the government can't tell you that you can't visibly say a silent prayer.

Edited March 23, 2023 by helix

[Islander]

On 3/22/2023 at 1:49 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hopefully someone's googling skills are better than mine: How can we read the dissenting opinion?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/USReports.aspx#:~:text=The opinions of the Supreme,§411.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, helix said:

The bolded section is correct. Ever since this case came out, people have been glibly saying the Supreme Court majority just can't do basic reading or understanding, as if they're Neanderthals incapable of understanding simple facts.

The Supreme Court justices are a bit smarter than that.

The coach got rightly punished for engaging in religious activities while on the clock. So he hatched a plan. Between the end of the game and the showers, there is a lull. People are heading home, some people are calling family, others get on the phone and chat about politics, whatever. It's basically a break from work.

The majority correctly pointed out that if all other school employees could do non-work activities during this break time, then this coach could go onto the field, kneel down, say nothing, then wait until the break is over.  After the break was over, he was responsible for making sure the gym locker room emptied out and no student got left behind at night.

In short, the majority said if there is a break at work and others are free to engage in non-work chatter, the government can't tell you that you can't visibly say a silent prayer.

If "the government can't tell you that you can't visibly say a silent prayer," then how was the coach "rightly punished for engaging in religious activities while on the clock"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If "the government can't tell you that you can't visibly say a silent prayer," then how was the coach "rightly punished for engaging in religious activities while on the clock"?

I believe helix is talking about the prayers in the locker room, either pre-game or during half time - don't remember which off the top of my head now (may have even been both - honestly don't remember). He got in trouble for those and did agree not to engage in those. That's when he started praying after the games instead.

 

[helix]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If "the government can't tell you that you can't visibly say a silent prayer," then how was the coach "rightly punished for engaging in religious activities while on the clock"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I should have said admonished, not punished.  From the majority:

the superintendent identified “two problematic practices” in
which Mr. Kennedy had engaged. App. 40. First, Mr. Ken-
nedy had provided “inspirational talk[s]” that included
“overtly religious references” likely constituting “prayer”
with the students “at midfield following the completion of
. . . game[s].” Ibid. Second, he had led “students and coach-
ing staff in a prayer” in the locker-room tradition that “pre-
dated [his] involvement with the program.”

He was leading prayers "on-the-clock" so to speak.

He was correctly admonished for it, so it changed his strategy to something else: silent prayers during break time.  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, helix said:

The bolded section is correct. Ever since this case came out, people have been glibly saying the Supreme Court majority just can't do basic reading or understanding, as if they're Neanderthals incapable of understanding simple facts.

The Supreme Court justices are a bit smarter than that..

CFR