Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Cert. Denied In Football Coach's Firing For On-Field Prayer

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Docket No. 18-12, cert. denied 1/22/19).  In the case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Washington-state high school football coach who in a challenge to his school district was suspended for kneeling and praying on the football field 50-yard line immediately after games. (See prior posting.)  In today's action, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, filed a 6-page concurring statement (scroll to end of Order List), saying in part:
In this case, important unresolved factual questions would make it very difficult if not impossible at this stage to decide the free speech question that the petition asks us to review....
While I thus concur in the denial of the present petition, the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future....
What is perhaps most troubling about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is language that can be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith—even when the coach is plainly not on duty.....
While the petition now before us is based solely on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, petitioner still has live claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Petitioner’s decision to rely primarily on his free speech claims as opposed to these alternative claims may be due to certain decisions of this Court.
In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith ... the Court drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause, and in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison ... the Court opined that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion does not require an employer to make any accommodation that imposes more than a de minimis burden. In this case, however, we have not been asked to revisit those decisions.
MyNorthwest reports on the decision.