Tension Between Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses Should Be Cherished
"The Roberts court is populated with judges who are religious and believe that religious principles, precepts and beliefs are paramount. It is altering the balance between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The tension between them is one that should be cherished rather than skewed to favor one clause over the other for the perceived benefit of those who claim loudly their religious beliefs."
July 06, 2022 at 10:00 AM
9 minute read
Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a football coach on the Bremerton, Washington School District after he knelt at midfield after games to offer a personal prayer. Mr. Kennedy sued in federal court alleging that the district violated his First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise rights. After concluding discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court found for the school board and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. (2022). The majority opinion written by Justice Gorsuch for a six-member majority continued the court's march to alter the traditional balance between the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses in favor of the exercise of one's sincere religious beliefs.
The majority and the dissent differ widely on the facts here. At the conclusion of each game, Coach Kennedy went to the 50-yard line to bow his head in prayer. The majority describes these prayers as private and quiet. The dissent (authored by Justice Sotomayor) describes the prayers as demonstrative. The petitioner invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The dissent included a photo of the post-game prayer. It shows many student-athletes surrounding the coach praying. Coach Kennedy did not lose his job because of a single instance of praying at the 50-yard line. He did this regularly. He had been admonished many times to halt this practice as it violated school guidelines. He refused. Attempts to arrive at a compromise were unsuccessful.
Everyone knows what "private" prayers are. Everyone also knows or should recognize that praying on the 50-yard line at the end of a game is a "private" prayer in a "public" place.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrade Secret Litigation: How Will AI Innovations Likely Be Litigated?
Standing on Less Shaky Ground: 'Guthrie' Decision Impact on NY Wage and Hour Matters
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250