The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Red Flag June Continues As Lemon Is Finally Interred
Justice Gorsuch stabs the final pencil into the Lemon Test.
We are in the midst of Red Flag June. On three consecutive session days, the Court has reversed old doctrine--and in the process, placed red precedential flags on many decisions. On Thursday, Bruen red-flagged dozens circuit decisions that followed the two-step approach for Second Amendment cases. On Friday, Dobbs red-flagged Roe, Casey, and countless other abortion cases. And today, Monday, Kennedy v. Beremerton School District red-flagged Lemon v. Kurtzman, and decades of precedents that relied on the infamous test.
Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion does not overrule Lemon in so many words, but the import of the ruling is clear--follow Town of Greece, not Lemon.
What the District and the Ninth Circuit overlooked, however, is that the "shortcomings" associated with this "ambitiou[s]," abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so "apparent" that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot. American Legion; see also Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) . . .
In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by "'reference to historical practices and understandings.'" Town of Greece.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent states the issue directly:
Today's decision goes beyond merely misreading the record. The Court overrules Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), and calls into question decades of subsequent precedents that it deems "offshoot[s]" of that decision.
Finally, at long last, Lemon has been interred. It is fitting to quote from Justice Scalia's Lamb's Chapel concurrence:
As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our decision in Lee v. Weisman, conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it, see, e. g., Aguilar v. Felton, (1985); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers (1983). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs "no more than helpful signposts," Hunt v. McNair (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.
Justice Gorsuch has stabbed the final pencil into the Lemon Test.
I have to imagine Justice Scalia is smiling from up high.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Saw a picture in a car book from 1896. An English law required that a man waving a red flag walk ahead of all automobiles. Is this the origin of the Red Flag law?
Kennedy is in, 6-3. Coach may pray at football game. School fired him in fear of ruinous litigation by the scumbag lawyer profession. All PC is case. All woke is case. Crush this toxic, scumbag lawyer profession to save our nation and our way of life. Round up its criminal, treasonous hierarchy. Try them an hour. The sole evidence would be their lawless lawyer utterances. Execute them in the court basement on reading of the verdict of guilty of treason. To deter.
I am starting to like this Supreme Court. I take back my proposal to arrest them all.
Beware of exploding liberals heads.
Conservatives, superstition, the Republican Party, bigotry, the Volokh Conspiracy, old white males, and the current Supreme Court are America's past.
The liberal-libertarian mainstream, reason, the Democratic Party, inclusiveness, modernity, glorious diversity, and an enlarged Supreme Court are America's future.
Be mindful while celebrating a few meaningless runs in the bottom of the eighth, clingers, that your betters need not always be so magnanimous in victory.
Jerry!!!!!! have to replace the "Bitter Klinger" keys on your Tandy??? or you still got the Atari?
and what's with your shame of your Almer Mater? https://law.udc.edu/
We can't all get into "Top Rung" Schools
Frank "Let us Pray, oh wait, we don't have to ask permission anymore?!?!?!"
Lemon test appropriately name for its sour taste?
Lemon was a garbage decision by garbage lawyers to generate worthless make work jobs for 3 lawyers a case. It was a scam and a crime of theft.
Need a lawyer to figure this rent seeking garbage out. Secular purpose of aid, advance or inhibit religion by the school, excessive entanglement. If you are secular, ignore the guy kneeling, and asking for God to side with his team in this game. Skip the $tens of thousands in lawyer thievin'.
Aside from brazen rent seeking, the lawyer wants to crush religion. It is 100 times better at persuading people to be nice than the utterly failed lawyer profession.
Not the "Lemon Test" I remember
and with Football Coaches being in the News today,
"An old coach of mine told me that if I was ever worried that a girl I was with had STDs, to take a lemon wedge and slide it in THERE. If she screams, she's got an STD."
It's what I've heard anyway,
Frank
This story lends itself to all kinds of scatological humor but in any case you should have been using a condom.
"Condom"??? he also drew us a Diaphragm and told us to buy some Condominiums, never understood.....
Umm, close. Ask "Big Brain on" Brett Kavanaugh
Is there really a need to brag about overturning precedent? I am not as strict stare decisis as most liberals want people to be, but come on man. Its one thing to justify overturning precedent, this is quite another.
Frankly this style of writing seems overtly political and dumb. Overturning Roe, Lemon, etc ... in my view is correct as a matter of law, but salivating over it?
I might just be projecting my growing frustration with the conservative movement on to this, but the writing comes across as pretending as if this is all a game when these decisions affect real people and the legal system writ large.
I don't think you get it. I don't even care about the legal issues at this point. What I want is to upset and enrage liberals, so that they fire the first shot, and lead to the bloody civil war which allows patriotic conservatives to finally wipe the leftist cancer off the Earth, forever.
Abd unfortunately, the internet is such that I can't tell if you are joking or not
I'm not joking. The leftist perverts will never leave conservatives alone, and will never agree to separately peacefully. So the only door left is a civil war.
That's just what a joker would say.
Bigoted old right-wingers are dying off at a handy clip. The marketplace of ideas and the culture war have already settled the issue of how much future conservatives' stale, ugly thinking will have in modern, improving America.
The bigots tried civil war once. I doubt they will try it again -- mostly because there won't be enough Republicans around to do much more than fill Mar-a-Lago for the annual Bigots' Ball.
Umm, might want to check your "Classic History Comic Books" Jerry,
South was run by DemoKKKrats, just like Sleepy Joe, who used to threaten young Blacks with a Bicycle Chain (not sure just how tough someone who went by "Cornpop" really was)
and speaking of Bigots, when's your 75th class reunion at https://law.udc.edu/
And I'm in perfectly good shape, for the shape I'm in.
Frank
“So that they fire the first shot”
Uh, why wait? I just don’t understand this need for pretext if that’s what you truly believe. Go for it, man!
It's not defense if you fire the first shot.
But why is “defense” important? What is this need for pretext? You want to start civil war under stand your ground laws or something? I just don’t understand why “who started it” is important to you if you believe in the need to eradicate leftists from the face of the earth forever. Times a-wasting! Get on it man! The cancer is metastasizing!
It's because Nisilko is chickenshit.
Of course, the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, so there isn't anything new here.
Yes, the Confederates shot at the Yankees, that's generally what you do with an enemy army.
Nisilimnko. Rent seeking cannot be eradicated even by megadeaths. It has to be controlled.
These decisions all violate Article I Section 1, giving Congress all lawmaking powers. Ending out of control, lawyer lawlessness is a good thing.
Thank you. I've been thinking this same thing, especially after I came across a post in one of my social-media feeds from a few years ago telling people not gloat over some decision that went against the conservatives.
Posting pictures of red flags on Westlaw citations is childish, and I have a hard time taking serious anyone who does that kind of stuff.
What did Lemon actually do?
Not a lawyer or especially well versed in the law, but it seemed to have added another brick in the "wall of separation" argument.
Lemon created an Establishment-Clause test for determining when that clause was violated. It involved whether the challenge government action was intended to further/inhibit religion, had the primary effect of furthering/inhibiting religion, or was involved with religion too much ("excessive entanglement").
For over 20 years, SCOTUS has refused to apply it to Establishment-Clause cases, but the federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals have continued to do so. Today, SCOTUS told them to stop. While decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) was not officially overruled, the Lemon Test and another standard ("Endorsement Test") were repudiated.
Wikipedia has a description, but to tell the truth, it's just so much mumbo jumbo to this non-lawyer, the kind of quibbly make-work that makes Daivd Behar seem like a prophet. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia article is fairly short and as readable as any legal description could be.
"as if this is all a game when these decisions affect real people and the legal system writ large."
Bad decisions affect real people and the legal system.
The the writing should reflect that. Josh Blackmans writing does not.
OK, you don't like his style, but is the reporting inaccurate?
Is his reporting accurate? Blackman predicts conservative victory in America. From a perch at the seventh-shittiest law school in America.
That makes him delusional.
where is yours https://law.udc.edu/ ranked, Jerry?
Odd to have a Jew celebrating the re-emergence of Christian hegemony. Going back to "historical practices and understandings"? Really?
Jews are much better off living under religious Christians than under Godless liberals.
Indeed; my teachers and tradition warn against the calamity of an atheistic hegemony. Or even pseudo-religions: i.e., those based on ethics as opposed to morality.
"the re-emergence of Christian hegemony"
You beclown yourself. The coach offered a private prayer, when his team was busy elsewhere. As an Orthodox Jew, that bothers me not at all.
You do what the coach says. You get close to him in whatever way you can.
I repeat. You beclown yourself.
No. You, and the majority, are willing to swallow any falsehood to get the desired result.
Who's the clown?
What falsehood if being swallowed here? Please specify.
That it was private prayer.
When the coach goes out to the middle of the field, right after the game, and publicly prays, "inviting" players to join him, that's not "private prayer."
It's public player, in a public setting, at a school event, by a school official. And that inherently contains an element of coercion.
Read the opinion. He was willing to pray after the kids headed out to the locker room or the bus.
Why don't you try reading the opinion. Neither the school district, nor the district court, nor the Ninth Circuit raised coercion as a basis to bar his prayer. It's simply made up bogus nonsense. The guy prayed, by himself, in the middle of the field, after the kids went elsewhere. If merely seeing someone praying sets you off, or makes you feel coerced, then something is wrong with you.
Read the dissent, which makes it clear that the majority decision was based on a deliberate "misfinding" of facts.
Eventually he was not praying by himself. And as the dissent says, there are strong - and unacceptable - social pressures to participate when your coach and later, team-mates, pray in public like this.
Geh in drerd, basically.
But thats irrelevant right? The Supreme courts job isn't to dispute the facts it is to issue a legal ruling as the facts are presented, and they were presented in the coach's favor.
I read it. The others were students and coaches from other school. NONE of this own students participated. If that's coercion, then I'm Mao Tse Tung.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying 'social coercion' arguments. That makes it basically impossible for any government employee to ever act on any religious beliefs, because it creates social coercion. Bull.
If there wasn't *actual coercion* (players who didn't join the prayer being denied starting spots or field time or whatever), that's where the analysis should end.
Further, there was no *finding* of coercion by the 9th circuit or the district court. Ergo, the Supreme Court can't just imagine there was coercion - on the facts of the case as received from the lower courts, coercion didn't happen.
Really, liberals should be celebrating the majority opinion.
"When Mr. Kennedy uttered the three prayers that resulted in his suspension, he was not engaged in speech “ordinarily within the scope” of his duties as a coach. Lane v. Franks, 573 U. S. 228, 240. He did not speak pursuant to government policy and was not seeking to convey a government-created message. He was not instructing players, discussing strategy, encouraging better on-field performance, or engaged in any other speech the District paid him to produce as a coach. Simply put: Mr. Kennedy’s prayers did not “ow[e their] existence” to Mr. Kennedy’s responsibilities as a public employee. Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 421. The timing and circumstances of Mr. Kennedy’s prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirms that Mr. Kennedy did not offer his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. It is not dispositive that Coach Kennedy served as a role model and remained on duty after games. To hold otherwise is to posit an “excessively broad job descriptio[n]” by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control. Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 424. That Mr. Kennedy used available time to pray does not transform his speech into government speech. Acknowledging that Mr. Kennedy’s prayers represented his own private speech means he has carried his threshold burden. Under the Pickering–Garcetti framework, a second step remains where the government may seek to prove that its interests as employer outweigh even an employee’s private speech on a matter of public concern. See Lane, 573 U. S., at 242. Pp. 15–19."
That's a lot broader than just about religion. Any speech not directly relevant to a teacher's mandatory duties is 'private speech'. So a gay teacher talking about his same-sex partner outside of classroom instruction/discussion - constitutionally protected.
(I'm not personally religious, but don't believe the 1A requires government hostility to religion).
Bullshit.
No. It doesn't make it "impossible for any government employee to ever act on any religious beliefs, because it creates social coercion."
That's ridiculous. This was a high school coach acting during a school function.
If there wasn't *actual coercion* (players who didn't join the prayer being denied starting spots or field time or whatever), that's where the analysis should end.
You know, when a religious person gets all upset over nothing, claiming it's a "substantial burden," these Justices, and conservatives generally, fall all over themselves accommodating the hurt feelings. But when someone claims implicit coerciosn, which there can be plenty of, suddenly it's all nonsense.
No one claimed implicit coercion. That was a what if invented by the minority opinion.
Do you imaging the coach would have been able to go to the middle of the field and start kneeling in the direction of Mecca?
An adult in a government granted position of authority engaged in public prayer is a pretty strong social pressure on the students to join in.
The fact the majority felt it necessary to actually misrepresent the facts speaks even more poorly of the state of conservative legal gymnastics.
Read the dissent.
He refused any accommodation, consistently violated policy, and made a great show of his intentions, garnering media coverage, etc.
The guy prayed, by himself, in the middle of the field, after the kids went elsewhere.
Read the dissent.
the District pointed out thatKennedy “remain[ed] on duty” when his prayers occurred“immediately following completion of the football game, when students are still on the football field, in uniform, under the stadium lights, with the audience still in attendance, and while Mr. Kennedy is still in his District-issued and District-logoed attire.”
The District further noted that “[d]uring the time followingcompletion of the game, until players are released to their parents or otherwise allowed to leave the event, Mr. Kennedy, like all coaches, is clearly on duty and paid to continue supervision of students.” Id., at 79.
The District stated that it had no objection to Kennedy returning to the stadium when he was off duty to pray at the 50-yard line, nor with Kennedy praying while on duty if it did not interfere with his job duties or suggest the District’s endorsement of religion. The District explained that its establishment concerns were motivated by the specific facts at issue, because engaging in prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after the game finished would appear to be an extension of Kennedy’s “prior, long-standing and well-known history of leading students in prayer” on the 50-yard line after games. Id., at 81. The District therefore reaffirmed its prior directives to Kennedy.
Again, the District emphasized that it was happy to accommodate Kennedy’s desire to pray on the job in a way
that did not interfere with his duties or risk perceptions of endorsement. Stressing that “[d]evelopment of accommodations is an interactive process,” it invited Kennedy toreach out to discuss accommodations that might be mutually satisfactory, offering proposed accommodations and inviting Kennedy to raise others. Id., at 93–94. The District noted, however, that “further violations of [its] directives”would be grounds for discipline or termination. Id., at 95.
Kennedy did not directly respond or suggest a satisfactory accommodation. Instead, his attorneys told the mediathat he would accept only demonstrative prayer on the 50yard line immediately after games. During the October 23and October 26 games, Kennedy again prayed at the 50yard line immediately following the game, while postgame activities were still ongoing
(emphasis added).
Private prayer, my ass.
"He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. "
He was praying alone, you twit.
He may have started off praying alone. Later - and there are photographs to prove it - there players with him.
Engaged in their own private speech. Are students not allowed to pray privately?
There's no finding of coercion in the record, nor any finding that the prayer was done as part of his coaching duties, ergo, everyone involved is exercising their free speech rights.
Are America's bitter clingers ready for coaches who gather players to mock superstition, exalt reason, revere science, and tell students that their Christian parents are gullible, obsolete, childish losers?
You mean the Christian Religion Barry Hussein America practices???? (because he can't be Moose-lum!)
Still waiting for your class standing at https://law.udc.edu/
Frank
"He was praying alone, you twit."
No, the coach was not praying alone. Bob, I know that you are loath to read original source materials, but here the dissenting opinion even included pictures. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
"Initially, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own. See ibid. But
over time, some players asked whether they could pray
alongside him. 991 F. 3d 1004, 1010 (CA9 2021); App. 169.
Mr. Kennedy responded by saying, “ ‘This is a free country.
You can do what you want.’ ” Ibid. The number of players
who joined Mr. Kennedy eventually grew to include most of
the team, at least after some games. Sometimes team mem-
bers invited opposing players to join. Other times Mr. Ken-
nedy still prayed alone."
Thank's Coach Sandusky!
Liberal "Jews" think that being Jewish is about eating lox, watching Seinfeld, and throwing ticket tape parades for abortions. Halakha doesn't begin to play a role.
Hmm must be a generation thing, I'm more into Corned Beef, Jack Benny, and cheering for every Terrorist murdered during "Munich" (Which I've seen almost as much as "Dirty Harry")
Frank "Oy Vey!"
Liberal Jews are at the Reform or Reconstructionist stop...last stop on the way to being non-Jewish.
I'm "Reform" still can admire (The Courage) of a Baruch Goldstein.
What about Meir Kahane?
Patriot murdered in cold blood, like Ashlee Babbitt
No. He didn't.
The whole case is based on a lie. Don't believe it.
There was plain coercion. If he wanted to pray privately he could do it at home.
"There was plain coercion. "
Talk about a lie.
Really? Have you forgotten what does and doesn't constitute coercion in a high school environment? Here's one hint : "Voluntary" is almost certainly not voluntary when it involves placating your coach in a big public display at an official public event before the entire damn community. Do you honestly think otherwise?
Of course, maybe our SCOUS Justices have forgotten what high school was like - or never knew. In commentary on the decision, I ran into this gem:
"Three justices on the court attended public high schools themselves while the rest attended Catholic schools"
"Do you honestly think otherwise?"
Yes.
Coercion involves some sort of force [punishment, withholding of privileges], no evidence of that here.
Plenty of evidence here of hatred of religion though.
It seems like he prayed more than once, over a long period of time, and offered to modify how he prayed when objections were raised. It is not clear that he was always alone, with students never around, during his entire history of praying at school events.
What I've always wondered about praying at competitive sporting events (where there will always be a winner and a loser); Is the prayer for god to help you win, or to thank god at the end if you did win?
And if at least some members of the other team are similarly praying, did god answer the prayers of one team and deny them of the other?
And if some member of one team is praying to succeed in the game (win) or thanking god at the end (for winning), isn't that necessarily also preying for the other team to lose?
Does god want a part of that competitive determination?
It is silly to think it possible to reason with gullible, superstitious, delusional, knuckle-dragging children.
Of all ages.
Stay away from the Children Jerry!!!!
Frank, we get it that Rev easily triggers you into these paroxysms of juvenility. You should skedaddle from here and find a blog more suitable to your IQ
Too bad it doesn't work that way in Amurica, read the rules.
He asked the District to allow him to continue
that “private religious expression” alone.
And the school offered to set aside space in the building where he could go and pray privately after the game. He refused to accept that.
Jerry Sandusky did the same thing. Why should practicing your religion be treated the same as taking a dump or jerking off??
The dissent has different facts.
In fact the board told him it was fine to go to the 50-yard line after the students had left and pray.
He refused that accommodation.
There's a lot of lying going on here.
Who put the School Board in charge of how you practice your religion?
Ha ha that's some sincerely held religious belief that he had to offer the prayer AT MIDFIELD! Not the 45 yard line, and the 40 "beith way out." Not on the sidelines, or at his house after the game. You can't make this shit up.
OK, let me ask you then ...
Suppose a player knelt during the national anthem (or even consider a less public event) as a protest on racial justice, and as a result, was kicked from the team and punished by the school. Or a coach did that and was fired.
I am almost 100% certain you would say it is nonsense to argue that is a form of coercion. And you would say it is a clear 1st amendment violation, right?
When the speech happens to be religious in nature, all of a sudden its problematic!
But religion is different? Why?
And there are plenty of cases with ACTUAL coercion (there was a funny one where some yoga instructor tried to force people to recite Hindu chants), which are obviously unconstitutional because they interfere with OTHERS free exercise / free speech rights. Not because of some asinine establishment clause theory.
This is my issue with liberal legal thought in this area, it develops increasingly more and more expansive views on what counts as racial or gender discrimination, but when it comes to religious people, none of it applies!
I am almost 100% certain you would say it is nonsense to argue that is a form of coercion.
I don't know who you are addressing, but I would certainly consider that coercion.
Then why was there no finding of coercion in the district or ninth circuit decisions? Should the Supreme Court just imagine coercion into the record?
Am I confused, or weren't you actually a lawyer?
There was a good Op-Ed in the Detroit Free Press on June 19, entitled "Muslims and Jews hope US Supreme Court will support coach's right to a Christian prayer". It was authored by: the general counsel of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty; an associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law; and the director of the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team at the Religious Freedom Institute. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall at
https://www.freep.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freep.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2Fcontributors%2F2022%2F06%2F18%2Fsupreme-court-decision-coach-prayer-muslim-jew%2F7665374001%2F
However, their Amici brief is available at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-418/215415/20220302132617840_21-418tsacJCRL.pdf
The Op-Ed, and presumably the brief, assail "a government that seeks to drive faith from the public square [rather than one] that allows their neighbors to publicly profess their faith." Public profession is an intrinsic part of all belief systems, religious and secular. If one can only express their belief in private have are we not implying their belief is not worthy of profession? Should we repress expressions of belief, such as those on this Blog - including yours?
Maybe better Americans should begin to be more open about mocking adult-onset superstition, belittling people who believe fairy tales are true, and pushing back against virus-flouting, science-disdaining, childish religious believers.
If someone can say "praise Jesus" at midfield, someone else should point out just as loudly that Jesus is a silly fairy tale and nothing more. 'Your parents are lying to you, students -- they're indoctrinating you with ignorance and delusion because they can't handle the real world You deserve better, and there's more to the world than this crappy backwater your parents are stuck in.'
like your Almer Mater? https://law.udc.edu/
Bored Lawyer : "The coach offered a private prayer...."
First, a question : Justice Sotomayor's dissent had multiple photos. As someone of the non-legal persuasion, is that typical in a SCOUS decision or dissent? (Just curious, that's all)
Second, a point : As the photos clearly show, these events weren't remotely close to being a "private prayer". They were as public as possibly could be imagined - meant to be a overt display yoked to an official and public school event. Indeed, if you read Gorsuch's and Sotomayor's descriptions of the actual particulars, the former's dissembling is hardly disguised. He knew where he wanted to go, facts be damned.
I suspect that's going to become part of the new Conservative Jurisprudence. Both the abortion and gun decisions were full of laughable platitudes and ludicrous assertions. SCOUS-wise, we're in a post-fact world.
Read Sotamayor more carefully. Her pictures were before the coach and the school radically changed his prayer situation. She thinks that the prior acts give "context' to the later ones and cause them to be coercive. (Some of the prior acts, like praying in the locker-room, pre-dated the coach being hired.)
Once the change happened, NO ONE FROM HIS SCHOOL PARTICIPATED IN HIS PRAYERS. The other teams, and their coaches did.
It is really strange to maintain that a coach's praying is coercive when NONE of his own team joins in. And I very much doubt the other teams, and their coaches, felt coerced.
As for Sotamayor's context, the simply answer to that is, you tell the students, "Coach's prayers are neither endorsed nor required by the school. Pray or don't pray as you like, and nothing will happen to you either way." And tell the coach that is the school policy, and if he in any way retailiates to non-praying students, he's fired.
The District Court opinion recites that at the October 26 game, Kennedy initially knelt down by himself but was then joined by about a dozen other adults. Once the players finished their fight song, they joined Kennedy at the middle of the field after he had finished his kneeling prayer. 443 F.Supp.3d 1223, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2020).
After the issues with Kennedy arose, several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy’s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team. No BHS students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy’s suspension.
I feel the same way, Bored Lawyer, The coach praying after the game does not trouble this Conservative Jew in the slightest.
Ditto for this Conservative Jew. FYI, I attended a private school until 8th grade and there was mandatory chapel and school prayer. I had a little confusion at first, but it all got settled in the end. I am not afraid when I see other people praying. I don't feel threatened when I see other people praying. I am comfortable enough with my own faith and identity that I was able to one of the leadership of a Christian organization...without becoming a Christian.
The coach praying after the game doesn't bother me either. Him praying ostentatiously while still on duty in an official school capacity, at a school event, does bother me.
He wasn't "praying privately." He was making a giant show of it.
Too bad this isn't Roosh-a Comrad (Is this Roosh-a? This isn't Roosh-a) I get it your side doesn't understand what "Infringed" means, so not surprising you don't get " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Frank
Jesus Christ, His name was(is) Jesus CHRIST
and he was a Jew before he was a Zombie,
Frank
His name wasn't actually Jesus Christ (even assuming the New Testament records true history accurately), it was Jesus son of Joseph (or more accurately, Yeshua ben Yosef).
What was Bug Bunny's real name? Senator Blutarsky's? Yosemite Sam's?
If we are going to discuss cartoon characters and fictional heroes, let's find something more interesting than that guy from Talladega Nights with the angel wings and a tuxedo t-shirt.
You seem to know alot about children's TV characters, Jerry.
I learned during my fundamentalist childhood that He was Jesus, the Christ.
The Democrat Party is the mortal enemy of Israel. Someone has to explain the inexplicable, why 70% of Jews vote for them. Why do Jews vote for the party of the KKK that lynched Jews in the south?
Seem reason 95% of Afro-Amuricans do, Reflex. Looks like the His-panics are learning though.
The Court and the dissent describe starkly different facts. If the Court accepted the dissent's facts, do they still conclude (while tossing out Lemon and the endorsement test) the school had no legitimate concern there was an Establishment Clause violation?
What did the district court find? Factual findings of the trial court are usually controlling, unless clearly erroneous.
Perhaps I should have said how the facts were characterized. The Court characterizes Kennedy as silently praying alone on the 50 yard line, with no intent of involving others and without encouraging or discouraging others to join in. The dissent characterizes Kennedy as intentionally drawing attention to his prayers and thus encouraging participation (the lower courts agreed with that characterization).
My questions remain: 1) if the Court accepted the dissent's characterization, do they rule differently (even tossing Lemon) and 2) if the dissent accepted the Court's characterization, do they rule differently (even while keeping Lemon). I would hope so in both cases.
What bothers me is doctrine has been altered without an agreement on how the facts should be characterized. If we assume the Court was right, there was no reason to consider Lemon (Kennedy wins even with Lemon). If we assume the dissent was right, there was no reason to consider Lemon since Kennedy lsoes.
The dissent characterizes Kennedy as intentionally drawing attention to his prayers and thus encouraging participation
Yes. Giving interviews about your intentions does not suggest that you are simply praying privately.
The Court said
The dissent said
Same planet, different worlds - and all because of a disagreement on how to characterize the facts.
Ah, but that's not a disagreement over characterization of the facts. That's a disagreement over characterization of the the law.
Regardless of whether anyone actually was coerced, does the law require any visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach to be deemed impermissibly coercive?
If yes, how does that not fall into the trap of non-displays being equally impermissibly coercive towards disbelief?
how does that not fall into the trap of non-displays being equally impermissibly coercive towards disbelief?
Non-displays are neutral. Religious displays aren't.
No one is going to say, "I haven't seen Rossami pray. He must be an atheist."
If they see you praying the rosary they probably would draw a conclusion about your beliefs.
re: "Non-displays are neutral."
No, they are not. Okay, in pure logic with incomplete information, that's correct but that's not how real people work. Compelling the censorship of all religious displays is discriminatory against religion and religious people. The opinion actually described this very issue quite well. The societal goal is tolerance of all religious beliefs (and dis-belief) in the public square, not the abolition of religion from the public square.
But we're not talking about censoring "all religious displays."
If a teacher wants to wear a necklace with a cross, that's fine, by me at least.
But if the teacher wants to pray at the front of the class, and invite those who wish to join in, that's not acceptable.
And that's pretty close to what Kennedy was doing.
With todays Crime-ridden Violent Pubic Schools and some poor Football Coach Praying is the Problem??? Shee-itttt, if that Atheist Cow Madaline Murray Old Hair was a teacher today, she'd be speaking in Friggin Tongues, praying she'd survive to her next period (get it?? her next Period???)
Frank
While that is a question of law, it is not relevant to either what the Court or the dissent wrote. The relevant question of law is whether:
And both the Court and dissent said "no" (even though the Court claimed the dissent said "yes").
Oops, I misread what you wrote. You just stated the same question of law that I did. But again, both the Court and dissent agree the answer is "no" (even though the Court claimed the dissent said "yes"). The problem was they couldn't agree on the facts to apply to that law.
If the dissent said "no", I must have missed it.
Okay, Sotomayor did have a lot of 'the facts aren't fully developed' language in the dissent but I had a lot of trouble crediting it given the extensive facts that were in evidence and/or which all the parties stipulated. The coach said it wasn't coercive, the students said it wasn't coercive, the school district said it wasn't coercive. Who, besides the dissent, says it was coercive?
The school district said it was coercive, although they failed to raise the issue in the lower courts. Whether or not it was coercive in this case is besides the point that the dissent does not conclude as a matter of law (again quoting directly from the dissent) "any visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach should be deemed . . . impermissibly coercive on students." Whether it is coercive depends on the facts and the context and characterization of those facts.
The District Court's opinion is reported at 443 F.Supp.3d 1223 (W.D. Wash. 2020). https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist-4
The only legitimate concern of the school, and it was well founded, was to avoid ruinous litigation by the nitpicking, garbage, scumbag lawyer profession. This profession must be crushed to save our country and our way of life.
And the companion question: if the dissent accepted the Court's facts, do they still conclude the school Has a legitimate Establishment Clause issue (while keeping Lemon)?
This is an activist court. The Supreme Court started out handling this case exactly as I predicted they would. They ruled that when Coach Kennedy uttered his prayers while suspended and off duty, he was acting purely as a private individual, not as a an official school instruction, and therefore the school district violated his Free Exercise rights by disciplining him. The fact that he wss suspended and officially forbidden to act in an official capacity compelled the conclusion that his sole capacity was private. After all, it’s the school district and its policies and pronouncements that determines what capacity Mr. Kennedy acted in. And because he was acting purely as a private individual, existing law easily showed that there was no Establishment Clause violation. The Establishment clause simply had no application in the absence of official action.
This case could and should have been a straightforward and boting application of existing law. There was no need to change it or even remark on it in any way.
For the Court majority to use this straightforward case, which on its facts has absolutely nothing to do with the Establishment Clause, as a basis for announcing sweeping changes in Establishment Clause precedent, renders it unhinged from its constitutional duty to decide only the “cases and controversies” before it. Instead, it is using the cases before it as a springboard to announce whatever doctrines it wants, not just when they aren’t necessary to deciding the case, but even when they are ccmpletely irrelevant to it. Because Mr. Kennedy acted in a purely private capacity, there was no official action, and the Establishment Clause was completely irrelevant to this case. This should have been a simple, straightforward Free Exercise case.
That’s very troubling. Making sweeping pronouncements on a body of constitutional law irrelevant to the case at hand is not acting as a court. That’s acting as a roving constitutional convention. It’s a direct violation of the 4th Amendment “cases and confroversies” limit on federal courts’ jurisdiction.
As I had said earlier, the District could easily have disciplined Coach Kennedy for violating his suspension by appearing at the game, walking on the field, and speaking to the students. What he did while there, and the contents of what he said, could and should have been completely irrelevant. He could and should have been disciplined solely for his conduct, not the contents of his speech or his religious activity. Bringing religion into a matter that could easily have been handled without saying anything about religion was a grave mistake on the District’s part, a really dumb mistake,something it could easily have avoided, and that other school districts shouldn’t repeat.
Thst is, if the District Court’s and the dissent’s view thst Coach Kennedy gave an impression that he was acting in an official capacity was correct, that provides a straightforward basis for discipline. Going to a school event and giving students the impression you’re acting in an official capacity while suspended violates your suspension.
But because Coach Kennedy didn’t ACTUALLY act in an official capacity at the time, there was no establishment clause violation.
If a non-teacher barges into a classroom and starts trying to pray or lead the students in prayer, what they pray simply isn’t attributable to the school district. That’s essentially what happened here. The school district can seek to punish the non-teacher for trespassing, but not for the prayer itself. And that’s what the school district should have done here.
These obsolete clingers are getting their best shots in before their betters impose adult supervision as the culture war buries conservatives' ugly, obsolete preferences. The clingers on the Court know it. The culture war casualties who put them on the Court know it. Modern, educated, reasoning Americans know it.
Some antisocial, disaffected misfits who find refuge at a fringe right-wing blog may be a bit slower on the intake, though.
just wondering your class rank at https://law.udc.edu/, you know, since you're so smart and everything. And when did you get time to coach at Penn State???
ReaderY....Can you point to objective criteria to determine whether a Court is 'activist' or not? What is the measuring stick you use?
Pronouncing a reversal of a precedent on a constitutional clause they’ve just shown is irrelevant to deciding the case before them seems pretty activist to me.
By your definition, every SCOTUS court is activist. Isn't that the case?
Not at all. Most (near all) Supreme court opinions start by explaining why the constitutional doctrine they are going to pronounce on IS relevant to deciding the case.
That is an easy one. The Supreme Court is activist when you disagree with the decision.
Cases and Controversies is in Article III of the Constitution, not the Fourth Amendment.
Kennedy was suspended for prayers he said while still on the job (10/16, 10/13 and 10/26).
Yes. But this case involved punishment for a prayer he said while he was suspended. That means he wasn’t on the job for the conduct he was punished for in this cases. The punishment for what happened when he was on the job was valid. But once off the job, the legal context behind what understandably appeared to be factually the same conduct shifted, and it wasn’t legally the same conduct.
Effectively Kennedy baited the school board into falling into a trap it should never have fallen into. I’m not unsympathetic to the school board here. But it needed good enough legal advice at the time to realize the trap being sprung for it and to avoid falling for it. If it had simply stepped around the banana peel, it could have gotten where it wanted to go.
Wait.
Much of the activity occurred before he was placed on leave. (And a person on administrative leave is still an employee, isn't he?)
And he was ultimately fired for all the ruckus he caused.
But he didn’t appeal the prior discipline. He appealed the most recent discipline. If you have a wrap sheet a mile long and you get sentenced as a recidivist at your most recent conviction, if you can show you didn’t do the most recent crime, your recidivist enhancement gets voided. It doesn’t matter that the previous convictions by themselves might have justified it anyway.
This is similar. He didn’t do the conduct his most recent discipline punished him for. What happened before doesn’t matter.
What am I missing? How could he have prayed as the coach after a game while he was suspended? On what dates did he pray while suspended for which he was punsihed?
Great week, two cases advancing free exercise, Roe aborted and gun rights improved.
It's a great week for ignoring the parts of the constitutional text that don't agree with your ideology, like the establishment clause or the opening words of the second amendment.
How about the whole thang?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No *"Common Sense Infringements are OK"
and I-ANAL, but I'm pretty sure "Shall" means something.
and "Well Regulated" means "Well Trained" or so I remember learning in 10th Grade Government (OK, it was an Alabama Pubic School)
Frank
The new Lemon test:
Is the government stopping Christians from doing shit? If the answer is yes, find for the plaintiffs.
Saw "(the) Passion of the Christ" at a Southern Movie theater in 2004, not a Christian, but it was in the News, and not every day you get to see(hear?) a movie in Latin/Aramaic/Greek. And Mel Gibson's yet to direct a Bad movie (mediocre maybe, Bad, no)
Still remember an older guy muttering "Why ain't Jeez-us talking English???" "Why We Gotta Read??!?!?!?"
Crowd gave Hey-Zeus a Standing O at the end including me, (You gonna be the only one not clapping for Jay-Hay??)
Frank
Reverend Sandusky's gonna wear out the "Bitter Klinger" keys on his keyboard today.
Aside from the many other problematic aspects of the opinion, isn’t it highly unusual that there remains a significant dispute about the underlying facts of the case? Isn’t that stuff all supposed to be worked about before a case ever reaches SCOTUS?
Yeah, but if the majority had gone along with the findings of the lower courts, it would have been more difficult to find for Kennedy, which is what they intended all along.
They could have very wasily found for Kennedy. See my comment above. If Donald Trump barged uninvited into a Red-state school and led a prayer rally there after January 20, 2021, while claiming to be acting as President, the fact that everybody at the school might think he was acting as President wouldn’t mean he was acting as President. And the fact that he was claiming to be acting as President wouldn’t make any difference either. There would be no official government action and hence no establishment clause violation. Neither his actions nor how his audience might interpret them would make any difference. It just wouldn’t matter how egregious his behavior was or how much his audience was convinced he was really the President. It wouldn’t matter that he might be doing something a real President couldn’t constitutionally do.
He might be guilty of trespassing. But not violating the Establishment clause.
This case, and Mr. Kennedy’s status at the time, isn’t really all that different.
BTW now that Lemon is done, we may see the Court trying to overturn Edwards v Aguillard. It's got to be on the shortlist.
Right.
In tribute to Scalia, whose dissent in that case is remarkable, and not in a good way.
That case was the first Supreme Court decision that I read in full. (Being at the beginning of my career as a public school science teacher when Kitzmiller v. Dover was in the news, I read up a lot of the history of creationism v. evolution that I hadn't known before.)
I was struck by how completely Scalia bent over backwards to justify the Louisiana legislature as having a secular purpose in requiring equal treatment in public schools for "creation science" and evolution. After all, if they wanted to call what they were trying to teach "science", who was he to dispute that?
Yup. As I've said before, Scalia was trying to draft a road map for how legislatures could get around the Lemon test.
I regard his dissent in Edwards as one of the most hysterically dishonest of his career.
From an essay I wrote a while back, updated:
Scalia’s dissent in Edwards was based not just on his distaste for Lemon but on a much more subtle idea, involving an end-run around the test itself. What he did was argue that the states knew what they were doing, and that as a matter of jurisprudence they must be presumed to be acting constitutionally. No state legislature intentionally violates the constitution, so if a legislature can show that it took evidence from both sides as to the religious nature or otherwise of creation science, or the unscientific nature of evolution, when it reached its decision as to the wording of any legislation, nothing more need be said.
Once a state legislature can claim that on the evidence they have heard, creation science or its rebranded Intelligent Design is genuinely science, it can assert that the legislation has a secular purpose by teaching the existence of alternative theories which by the evidence they have heard they deem to be scientific not religious; by the same token, once ID is deemed to be science the act requiring it to be taught does not advance a religion, and nor is there any entanglement. Scalia will inquire no further into the decision process, the relative strength of the real scientific evidence, the nature of the supporters, evidence of motives, etc. What he did in Edwards was prepare the ground for the next generation of creationist legislators to be just subtle enough in the legislative process to pass an act which will allow a conservative Supreme Court to decide, “the legislature of Mississippi says it’s science, and that’s good enough for us”.
How many Christian parents would freak out if their kid joined the coach in a Muslim prayer?
And the parents retain the right to tell their children to join or not join the prayer.
And the parents retain the right to tell their children to join or not join the prayer.
And what if the players think that whether they get playing time depends on them joining in the prayer?
wouldn't be a very Observant Moose-lum (HT B. Sanders) if he was a Football Coach, with most Highschool games on Friday Nights.
Our school had Saturday afternoon games mostly. Few schools, including ours, had enough money for lights. Occasionally an opposing school did, so we did.
Both houses of Congress open every session with a Prayer (I pray to, that they'll NOT open a session (no Insurrection/Violence intended, just sleep better when they're not in session)
Don't care if it's Non-Denominational, or if Mullah Omar faces Mecca, it's a Prayer, they even have a Chaplain fur cyrin' out loud (and their own special Doctors, mostly Navy, you know, because Active Duty/Veterans aren't waiting months for treatment),
But a Football Coach can't pray with his team. If any Representatives/Senators end up getting hung (not advocating it or even hoping for it) it'll be due to BS like this.
Frank "A-Men!!"
I’ll bring something out of inside threads to a general comment post.
Suppose Donald Trump had gone to the game sometime after January 20, 2021, walked on the field, told the students that he was the President of the United States, and said that the U.S. government was going to lead them in prayer. Suppose the students believed that he was the President. (If you’d like, change the hypothetical to a very MAGA-friendly red state district where such a widespread belief among the students would be more plausible).
Would there be an establishment clause violation here? Mr. Trump claimed to be the President and represent the U.S. government. Is his prayer in fact atteibutable to the U.S. government? Could the U.S. government be liable for his conduct? After all, his claim to act on behalf of the U..S government couldn’t have been ststed more clearly, and the students genuinely believed he did.
If not, what makes this hypothetical different from Mr. Kennedy’s case?
Trump as (ex-)President raises some difficult questions both because of the immunity of the office and because federal officials are less vulnerable to suit than state officials now that Bivens has been neutered. I think a state official who pulled a similar trick would be subject to suit for acting under color of state law, even though the authority claimed did not legally exist.
I answer below. The question isn’t whether there are things Mr. Trump (and Mr. kennedy) could be punished for. I list some of the things they could be. The question is whether they could be punished for causing the government entity the students believed they represented to violate the Establishment clause.
That they couldn’t, as I explain below. With no actual government action, there was no actual establishment clause violation. So they didn’t in fact cause one, and hence couldn’t be punished for something they didn’t actually do.
Mr. Trump doesn’t get off here. He coild be punished for trespassing. He could be punished for impersonating the President and claiming to be act in an official capacity. Perhaps other things.
But he COULDN’T be punished for violating the Establishment Clause. Not actually the Presodent, no official government action, no violation of the Establishment clause. It doesn’t matter what the students subjectively believed.
Mr. Kennedy is in a similar situation. He could be punished for violating his suspension. He could be punished for trespassing for sauing the prayer. But much like ex-President Trump, because he wasn’t actually a coach or a teacher at the time his a tions weren’t attributable to the government, and with no government action, there was no Establishment Clause violation. And because there wasn’t actually any establishment clause violation, he COULDN’T be punished for violating the Establishment Clause.
Since the school district (very foolishly) punished him solely for a non-existent Establishment clause violation instead of the various very real things they could have easily punished him for instead without any problem, he wins his case.
YEs, that was my thought as well. Just ban him from the field, and punish him for trespassing. All perfectly secular reasons.
You make a compelling argument. Unfortunately the District made a non-issue THE issue, when there were legitimate contratual reasons to discipline Kennedy.
Ha! I can't believe I'm the first one to make a crack about the direction from which Scalia looks. Must be my lucky day
I'm not on as intimate terms with the Surpreme Being as you apparently are, but he's gotta be right next to RBG.
Gorsuch spends the first 7+ pages pulling at my heartstrings with his recounting of the facts. The dissent manages to capture them in its first sentence:
I chuckled after reading that.
It's the Clarence Thomas heuristic - the longer the description of the facts, the less sound the rationale for the opinion.
This is not germane to the legal issues, but I wonder how the coach reconciles his conduct with the words of Jesus:
Matthew 6:1, 5-6 (RSV).
I would not want such a rank hypocrite in a position of authority to influence adolescents.
The Christian right seems to have little regard for Christ's teachings.
The Christian right is a bunch of obsolete, authoritarian, knuckle-dragging bigots.
Good one, not guilty
It doesn't matter what Jesus actually said, Coach Kennedy has a sincere religious belief.
Yeah. He has a sincere religious belief that he has to pray in a way that makes him and his piety the center of everyone's attention.
How does an unemployed high school coach afford the services of Paul Clement, one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time?
How much of the crowdfunding take wound up in the coach's pocket?
I'd file that under "Business, Yours, Nunya"
How did Sleepy's son get a position at Burisma? How much did he give to Father Sleepy?? You think these January 6th hearings are boring, wait for the Sleepy/Hunter Hearings next year, where you'll get to hear Hunter take the 5th for 6 hours...
Frank
" I have to imagine Justice Scalia is smiling from up high."
Scalia is dead and gone. He has learned that the superstition he championed was all just silly, childish bullshit.
But childish, gullible people are free to imagine as they wish.
I find myself remarkably curious how you think he came to learn that.
I have no doubt that hell has many excellent law schools.
I do, as it's made up superstitious nonsense.
In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by "'reference to historical practices and understandings.'"
Yet again, we see how this originalist-style approach puts the thumb on the scale of conservative views. "Historical practice was for the Christian majority to find ways to use government to endorse its religion and otherwise give the appearance of Christianity being the default belief of 'good citizens', so it must be okay now as well."
Art 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) includes these words:
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
The treaty was passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by John Adams. Does anyone here think that any of those Republican senators who advocate for originalism in the law would have voted for a treaty which included these words?