Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 18–12.

• Citation: 203 L.Ed.2d 137,139 S.Ct. 634 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 22 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18–12.,18–12.
• Parties: Joseph A. KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• Court: United States Supreme Court

139 S.Ct. 634 (Mem)

203 L.Ed.2d 137

Joseph A. KENNEDY

v.BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 18–12.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS, Justice GORSUCH, and Justice KAVANAUGH join, respecting the denial of certiorari.

I concur in the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari because denial of certiorari does not signify that the Court necessarily agrees with the decision (much less the opinion) below. 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.

I

Petitioner Joseph Kennedy claims that he lost his job as football coach at a public high school because he engaged in conduct that was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. He sought a preliminary injunction awarding two forms of relief: (1) restoration to his job and (2) an order requiring the school to allow him to pray silently on the 50–yard line after each football game. The latter request appears to depend on petitioner's entitlement to the first—to renewed employment—since it seems that the school would not permit members of the general public to access the 50–yard line at the relevant time.

The key question, therefore, is whether petitioner showed that he was likely to prevail on his claim that the termination of his employment violated his free speech rights, and in order to answer that question it is necessary to ascertain what he was likely to be able to prove regarding the basis for the school's action. Unfortunately, the answer to this second question is far from clear.

On October 23, 2015, the superintendent wrote to petitioner to explain why the district found petitioner's conduct at the then-most recent football game to be unacceptable. And in that letter, the superintendent gave two quite different reasons: first, that petitioner, in praying on the field after the game, neglected his responsibility to supervise what his players were doing at that time and, second, that petitioner's conduct would lead a reasonable observer to think that the district was endorsing religion because he had prayed while "on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-logoed attire, in front of an audience of event attendees." 869 F.3d 813, 819 (C.A.9 2017). After two subsequent games, petitioner again kneeled on the field and prayed, and the superintendent then wrote to petitioner, informing him that he was being placed on leave and was forbidden to participate in any capacity in the school football program. The superintendent's letter reiterated the two reasons given in his letter of October 23. And the district elaborated on both reasons in an official public statement explaining the reasons for its actions.

When the case was before the District Court, the court should have made a specific finding as to what petitioner was likely to be able to show regarding the reason or reasons for his loss of employment. If the likely reason was simply petitioner's neglect of his duties—if, for example, he was supposed to have been actively supervising the players after they had left the field but instead left them unsupervised while he prayed on his own—his free speech claim would likely fail. Under those circumstances, it would not make any difference that he was praying as opposed to engaging in some other private activity at that time. On the other hand, his free speech claim would have far greater weight if petitioner was likely to be able to establish either that he was not really on duty at the time in question or that he was on duty only in the sense that his workday had not ended and that his prayer took place at a time when it would have been permissible for him to engage briefly in other private conduct, say, calling home or making a reservation for dinner at a local restaurant.

Unfortunately, the District Court's brief, informal oral decision did not make any clear finding about what petitioner was likely to be able to prove. Instead, the judge's comments melded the two distinct justifications:

"He was still in charge. He was still on the job. He was still responsible for the conduct of his students, his team.... And a reasonable observer, in my judgment, would have seen him as a coach, participating, in fact leading an orchestrated session of faith...." App. to Pet. for Cert. 89.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit was even more imprecise on this critical point. Instead of attempting to pinpoint what petitioner was likely to be able to prove regarding the reason or reasons for his loss of employment, the Ninth Circuit recounted all of petitioner's prayer-related activities over the course of several years, including conduct in which he engaged as a private citizen, such as praying in the stands as a fan after he was suspended from his duties.

If this case were before us as an appeal within our mandatory jurisdiction, our clear obligation would be to vacate the decision below with...