Legal Definitions - Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

The Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) clarified the First Amendment rights of public employees, specifically concerning the clauses protecting freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment safeguards a public employee who engages in a personal religious observance from being punished by the government. Essentially, the Constitution prevents government entities, such as public schools or other state employers, from prohibiting an individual's private religious expression, even if it occurs on government property or during work hours, as long as it is not part of their official job duties and does not coerce others.

The case involved a high school football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who would offer a brief, quiet prayer at midfield after games. Over time, students sometimes joined him. The school district eventually told him to stop, viewing his actions as a potential endorsement of religion by the school. When Kennedy continued to pray silently and visibly after games, he was placed on administrative leave and ultimately not rehired. The Supreme Court sided with Kennedy, determining that his post-game prayers were a personal religious observance, not part of his official coaching duties, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

This ruling emphasizes that public employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the "schoolhouse gate" or workplace entrance when engaging in genuinely personal religious expression, provided it is not coercive and does not constitute official government speech.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles of Kennedy v. Bremerton:

• Example 1: A Public School Teacher Wearing a Religious Symbol

  Imagine a public elementary school teacher who quietly wears a small necklace with a religious symbol, such as a cross or a Star of David, while teaching. The school district, concerned about maintaining religious neutrality, implements a policy prohibiting staff from displaying any religious symbols during school hours. When the teacher is asked to remove the necklace and refuses, facing disciplinary action, this situation would be analyzed under Kennedy v. Bremerton. The teacher's act of wearing a personal religious symbol is a private expression of faith, not part of their curriculum or official duties. The Kennedy ruling suggests that punishing the teacher for this personal observance, which does not coerce students or represent government endorsement, would likely violate their First Amendment rights.

• Example 2: A City Employee Reading a Religious Text During a Break

  Consider a clerk working for a city's Department of Motor Vehicles. During their unpaid lunch break, the clerk sits at a public table in the employee break room and quietly reads from a religious book. Another employee complains to management, arguing that seeing a religious text in the workplace makes them uncomfortable and implies the city supports that religion. If the city management then instructs the clerk to only read non-religious materials during breaks to avoid any appearance of endorsement, this directive could be challenged under Kennedy v. Bremerton. The clerk's act of reading a religious text during a personal break is a private religious observance, separate from their official duties. The Kennedy decision protects such personal expressions from government reprisal, as long as they are not disruptive or coercive.

• Example 3: A Public University Professor's Personal Prayer Before Class

  Suppose a professor at a state university, before their lecture begins and while students are still settling in, briefly bows their head at their podium for a moment of silent, personal prayer. A student observes this and reports it to the university administration, claiming the professor is promoting religion in a public institution. If the university attempts to reprimand the professor or prohibit such personal acts, the professor could invoke Kennedy v. Bremerton. The professor's silent prayer is a personal religious observance, not part of the official curriculum or a directive to students. The Court's ruling protects public employees' right to engage in such private religious expression without fear of government punishment, distinguishing it from official endorsement or coercion.