Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Coach Joe fields another loss

Coach Joe Kennedy (Lindsey Wasson/The Seattle Times)

Joe Kennedy, an assistant high school football coach, felt “called by God” to pray immediately after each of his team’s games, directly on the fifty-yard line. Soon, his prayer became a notable community event, garnering players and parents from both teams, and the attraction of local and national news.

After each game was over, “and after the players and coaches from both teams [ ] met to shake hands at midfield,” he proceeded to the fifty yard line of the field, knelt down, and engaged in about thirty seconds of silent prayer. Over the course of the years he coached from 2008 until 2015, more of his own players, as well as coaches, students, and parents, joined him in silent prayer. These then changed into “short motivational speeches” that included sectarian religious language. When Bremerton School District learned of this, they told Kennedy to stop the religious speeches, and that he must separate his religious exercise from the players. Kennedy followed the school’s orders for one game, but then proceeded to the same conduct as before. The coach gave multiple interviews to the news media, and after failed negotiations with the school to find common ground on religious conduct, the coach was placed on paid administrative leave, and his contract was not renewed at the end of the year.

Kennedy sued in 2016, stating that his rights to free exercise were violated by the district’s rules. Both the District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district, while the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The case was sent back to the district court, and the Ninth Circuit wrote their second opinion on March 22nd. 

A January 2021 interview with Fox News
Kennedy brought three main claims before the court: free speech, free exercise, and Title I & II claims of unequal treatment. Specifically, he argued that he spoke as a private citizen, and that the district did not have “adequate justification for treating [him] differently than other members of the general public.” Kennedy claims that his speech did not coerce anyone, as it became elective and “opt-in”. To the free exercise claim, he states that the school district did not have a compelling interest to be able to regulate his religious speech. Through television interviews, Kennedy emphasized that a negative ruling here would have adverse effects for all free exercise cases.


The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the district. In short, the Circuit said that because he was a coach, he would not have had access to his position on the field otherwise, and thus, “Kennedy’s position encompassed his post-game speeches to students on the field.” Additionally, the fact that he continually communicated his convictions to the news media, the Circuit said, was “a continuation of his on-field demonstrative activities… that were designed to attract publicity.” He’s continued to speak about his case, including writing a Fox News op-ed in January.

Additionally, the district did have a compelling interest in regulating Kennedy’s free speech and exercise, the Circuit said: as held in Good New Club v. Milford Central School, when some state tries to avoid some Establishment Clause violation, that in and of itself can constitute a compelling interest. The possible Establishment Clause violation?  Kennedy’s prayers could have ended up coercing students towards some particular religious persuasion. Further, the speech was not private “in the context of Kennedy’s publicity leading up to it,” because of his choice of publication of the matter.

While I have reservations about part of the reasoning, I agree with the Circuit Court’s ruling in favor of the district. Ultimately, while the prayer indisputably began as a silent, individual exercise of religion, the actual “privacy” did not last throughout. The act of retooling the practice when the number and involvement of students increased inched the practice ever-closer to something that could become unconstitutional. Whether it’s the Supreme Court’s ruling against the reading of non-denominational prayers in Engel v. Vitale, private time set aside for prayer in Wallace v. Jaffree, or the student-led prayer in public schools in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, ultimately, it’s clear that precedent stands against Coach Kennedy. While the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment, is vital to the foundations of American democracy, Kennedy’s act treaded dangerously close to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and as such, the school was well within their rights to end his employment. 

The only part of the decision about which I have reservations is the negotiation process of which the district tried to find a solution with Kennedy. Ultimately, I do understand that those sorts of discussions are manifestations of the “least restrictive means” provision common to the strict scrutiny standard. Kennedy found that no sort of prayer was acceptable than on the fifty yard line, immediately after the game. Telling Kennedy that other options, spaces, and times could be made available to him, treads close to government prescription of religious practice. However, the case for the district is compelling enough in other ways (speech, publicity, etc.) that, ultimately, the Circuit ruled correctly in order to ensure the vital separation of church and state.


8 comments:

  1. I agree with Nick and the district court in the ruling of this case. Although I understand how and why the Coach believes his free exercise is being violated, I do not believe it is. One of the reasons that stood out to me the most from this post was the argument of public vs private speech. As Nick highlights, Coach Joe was a public figure before, during, and after the game and his prayers could be seen as influencing players or fans because it took place on the field, following the conclusion of the game. The district isn't telling the Coach he cannot pray at all, they are just telling him he cannot pray immediately following a football game, while kneeling on the field, as he still remains in his capacity as the school's coach.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While this is a complicated matter, I side with Nick's argument. In my opinion, it is crucial to note that Coach Joe's action might be seen as coercion towards the students. It is important to note that high school students are impressionable and that Coach Joe's praying may have resulted in his students engaging in some religious practice outside their beliefs. Also, considering that this practice of praying after the game has attracted more people, his actions does have sway over the public. While I am aware that the court did not tell the coach he couldn't pray, I wonder if he would have been allowed for Coach Joe to pray in a more neutral setting? Instead of school grounds would another event with the team be permissible?

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I understand Nick's argument, I disagree with him as well as the ruling in this case. I do not think that the Coach's freedom to pray after the game should be taken away. I believe that this in fact is private speech and that nobody is being coerced into joining. People chose to join him in prayer after the game. Most times following high school sporting events the athletes are joined by spectators and are free to move around as they please. If students did not want to join in prayer they do not have to. I do not think that people joined because they felt they were coerced, but instead because they made a conscious decision to join in.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At first after reading this blog post, I agreed with Nick that the Coach's Freedom to pray after the game was not violated and that the school had the power to prevent him from doing so because he did hold a powerful position as the football coach that it would be thought that students would be coerced into following his lead. However after analyzing the situation even further, I would argue that the coach's free exercise rights were in violation and he was receiving unequal treatment. Since the prayer takes place after the football game, technically the Coach would not hold his position as the public school coach, since the game is over. Thus, the Coach at this point after the game would serve as any other common individual. At this point in the game players have had the option to leave and return to their families, thus the coach could be hypothetically praying alone if all players decided to leave the field and return to their families.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with the ruling that it is unconstitutional for the Coach to be praying at the end of the game, especially because of his title as the coach and the public school grounds it was occurring on. It is important to note that as the leader of the team, his position will have more influence compared to others. Furthermore, at a school, people are not granted their full constitutional rights. Compared to adults, students are more likely to be coerced because of social influences like if their teammates join the prayer or if they feel some sort of coercion because the leader, the coach, is doing the prayer. Therefore, the prayer should not occur after the game and it is not a violation to regulate that action.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the author in that while the prayer began as silent, it has become a much more public event now. When a player sees his coach praying and others joining as well, they may feel coerced into participating. Kids are very impressionable and often look up to their coaches, so when they see their coach doing this it can have a major influence on their religious beliefs while on public school grounds. While the coach is on the field with his team he is a public authority that needs to be seen as somewhat neutral towards religion so he does not pressure others. This is why I agree with the Court that the prayer is unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Julia makes a good point about public influence and the idea and effects a private prayer has versus a public prayer. I have joined a prayer after sporting events simply because everyone else was doing it but it never interfered with my religious beliefs personally but there is peer pressure to join. The location also has a major influence considering that is it on school grounds (public) meaning that public schools should remain neutral and not attempt to establish a specific type of religious practice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Although I truly believe that this is a tough situation, I believe that this court decision should have sided with the coach. He starters his prayer as a solitary, selfless act. Most people find nothing wrong with this act. However, simply because more people joined coach, and he began to get more attention, I do not believe that this makes this act wrong. He has the right to practice his religious beliefs, and if people want to take part then they can. People may say that others may feel pressured to join in with him, but this is because of the others joining him, not his act alone. Therefore I feel he alone is not to blame and should be able to practice his religion as he wishes.

    ReplyDelete