The high school football coach and SCOTUS parties were fired for praying on the field.

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the 6-3 football coach who was fired for praying on the field after matches, marking another victory for religious freedom by a conservative court.

The lawsuit involves high school football coach Joseph Kennedy and the Bremerton School District in Washington state. Kennedy, a devout Christian who began studying at Bremerton High in 2008, was fired as assistant coach and junior varsity head coach for refusing to stop praying at the 50-yard line in front of the crowd after games. .

Kennedy argued that the school district violated free speech and free agency provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The district also used the First Amendment to justify Kennedy’s argument, arguing that prayers to the public and students after a school-authorized event violated the Establishment Clause because his actions could be considered sanctioned by the religious district.

Judge Neil Gorsuch gave the majority opinion, ruling that the Bremerton School District violated the First Amendment’s Freedom of Exercise Clause and the Freedom of Speech Clause by dismissing coach Joseph Kennedy for praying after the games. Gorsuch also ruled that the county failed to prove Kennedy’s infringement of the founding clause and overturned the decision. The “lemon test” is a measure of government practice of religion that some judges once called outdated and abused.

“Respect for religious expressions is essential to life in a free and diverse Republic, whether they are expressed verbally or through the bowed head, whether in the sanctuary or in the field. Here, a government agency seeks to punish a person for participating in a short, quiet, personal religious ceremony that is twice protected by the First Amendment freedom of worship and freedom of speech clauses,” Gorsuch wrote.

“The only reasonable justification offered by the government for repression is based on the misconception that it has to investigate and suppress religious activities, even if it allows for similar secular performances. The Constitution neither allows nor condones such discrimination,” he said.

Gorsuch opposed the district court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Kennedy, writing that the lower court’s interpretation of the founding clause would make all speeches of school staff “subject to government control.”

“With this understanding, a school could dismiss a Muslim teacher for wearing a hijab in class, or forbid a Christian assistant from praying quietly at lunch in the mess hall,” he wrote.

Gorsuch further explained that the founding clause, the freedom of action clause, and the freedom of speech clause have complementary purposes, “rather than contradictory, where one clause always necessarily precedes the other.”

“Thus, the district actually created its own fault between the establishment clause on the one hand and the freedom of expression and freedom of action clause on the other, revealed itself and then chose the path it preferred from this trap. . “He continued.”To defend their strategy, the realm relied on Lemon and his children. The ninth district followed the same path in supporting the actions of the region.

Gorsuch started smoking Lemon, Claiming that the district’s claims that Kennedy “forced” students to pray with him were unfounded. The judge explained that Lemon’s case “caused turmoil” in lower courts and “created a minefield for lawmakers”.

“Since then, this court has also clarified that the incorporation clause does not contain anything resembling a revised veto right to criticism, here…. . He wrote that religious activity could be banned based on “opinions” or “offence”.

“Instead of the lemon and test of consent, this court ruled that the foundation clause should be interpreted as ‘reference to historical practice and understanding,'” he continued.

Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote opinions at the same time; Judge Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with Judge Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Sotomayor argued that the majority’s decision was “evil” to the separation of church and state and was “not a victory for religious freedom”.

The First Liberty Institute, which represents Coach Kennedy, disagreed with Sotomayor’s assessment, calling the decision a “great victory” for Kennedy and “religious freedom for all Americans.”

“Our Constitution protects the right of every American to express his religion personally, including in public prayer, without fear of impeachment. We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognizes what the Constitution and the law have always said: Americans are free to express their beliefs in public,” said Kelly Shackelford, First Liberty President, CEO and General Counsel.

Together we won on behalf of Coach Kennedy in the Supreme Court! Stay tuned as we deliver success! pic.twitter.com/HavmkzzexX

– First Freedom Institute (@1stLiberty) 27 June 2022

“This is another great achievement for the Constitution and the rule of law,” agreed former Ambassador Ken Blackwell, senior adviser to the Council on Family Studies and the Americas Policy Institute. “It reaffirms President Trump’s incredible contribution to our nation’s highest court, which that same week ratified the Second Amendment and restored abortion to the states, and now retains its original significance for the public. Freedom of religion in the First Amendment. ” .

Speaking at Kennedy’s trial, former US Attorney General and First Liberty attorney Paul Clement also celebrated the victory.

“After seven long years, Coach Kennedy can finally return to work as a football coach and pray quietly after a game. It was a huge success for Coach Kennedy and the First Amendment,” Clement said.

Coach Kennedy also issued a statement saying, “It’s just great.”

“All I want is to get back on the field with my teammates. I am extremely grateful to the Supreme Court, my amazing legal team, and everyone who supported us. I thank God for answering our prayers and supporting my family in this long war,” he said.

Actually Number. 21-418 in the US Supreme Court.