Supreme Court

While the overturning of Roe v Wade has dominated headlines and sparked protests across the United States and elsewhere, it is not the only recent ruling to ...

How did the Supreme Court rule? How did the Supreme Court rule? How did the Supreme Court rule? How did the Supreme Court rule? Mr Tekoh was acquitted at trial. In its first major gun decision in more than a decade, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defence.

With the praying football coach decision, the court's conservatives upended a key precedent and knocked another hole in the wall separating church and ...

While I find Gorsuch’s view of free exercise to be wrong, and this attack on the establishment clause to be deeply troubling, there is a First Amendment argument that I would find compelling in certain situations. nothing. He says he endorses an “offshoot” of the Lemon test to figure out if the government has violated the First Amendment, but he describes that offshoot as being based on interpretations of “historical practices and understandings.” I do not know, and cannot know, what these historical practices are, or which “understandings” the Court is likely to find persuasive in the future. The only saving grace of this opinion (no pun intended) is that it will be among the easier to overturn. After the game was over and he gave a secular post game speech, Kennedy would go back to the stadium, alone, and pray. But it does need to ignore and functionally write the establishment clause out of existence to allow for a public school official to lead students in prayer and compel them (however subtly) into participating in prayer. The phrase “free exercise” is found in the second clause of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What conservative justices have done over the years is superpower that second clause to the point where it drowns out the first clause prohibiting the establishment of religion. His students were not “otherwise occupied.” Gorsuch and Alito are lying about what happened, and they’re lying in such an obvious way that, in dissent, Justice Sotomayor adopted the pictures-or-it-didn’t-happen rule and appended photographic evidence to her dissent to show what Kennedy was really doing and how her conservative colleagues were lying about it. Gorsuch could have left it at that and allowed this case to be just another expansion of the free exercise clause at the expense of all other concerns. To avoid an establishment clause violation, the government or its employee’s conduct “must have a secular purpose, must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” 6 The Lemon test was far from perfect, but it provided a guideline, at least, that states and state actors could use to figure out what kinds of conduct is allowable. Last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court succeeded once again at reading the first clause of the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. That Amendment starts with the line: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” but conservatives justices have rendered that phrase meaningless. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that the district unfairly punished Kennedy for engaging in religious activity, thus depriving him of the free exercise of his religion.

Hillary Clinton said that the overturning of Roe v. Wade should be a wake-up call for Americans.

I think that we are looking at not only the erosion of these rights, the throwing the door open to unfettered, unregulated gun access, but we're also looking at dismantling the federal government, how it protects our air, and our water, and everything else that goes along with it," she said. "This is going to, I hope, wake up a lot of Americans. I don't care what political party or religion you are, the question is, 'Who decides?' Is the government going to be in your bedroom? I may not win the first, the second, or the third time, but we're going to keep at it.'" "He has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures, 'Find cases. I was deeply sorry that it actually happened," she said. "I think that was the goal of packing the Court with justices who were on the record for many years of being against women's constitutional rights to make decisions about our own bodies.

The court's rightwing majority was extremely receptive to a case this week that would weaken the separation of church and state.

By ruling in Kennedy’s favor, they have opened the door for any Christian public official to claim that they are being discriminated against if any limits are placed on their religious expression during the conduct of their jobs, and imperiling any public bodies that try to maintain a separation between their employee’s private religious actions and their own public official ones. Why? Because its conservative supermajority has adopted a radically expansionist view of the first amendment’s free exercise clause, interpreting the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion in a way that in fact tramples on the freedoms of others. An emergent trend in conservative thought – backed by a growing body of case law emerging from the Republican-controlled federal bench – has begun framing what were once considered standard features of the separation of church and state as oppressive discrimination against Christians. The school tried to accommodate Kennedy, offering him ways to exercise his faith that did not involve students, and did not risk giving the impression that his religion was endorsed by the public school. He eventually left the school – voluntarily – and began to claim that the district’s policies amounted to both religious discrimination and a violation of his free speech rights. He says that he got the initial idea from a movie, the low-budget 2006 Christian football drama “Facing the Giants,” which he saw on TV. The film features a fictional coach who prays with his high school football team. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor cast doubt on the idea that the coach offered his prayers “quietly, while his students were otherwise occupied.” She included a photograph of Coach Kennedy at one of his game night prayers. “It made sense to do it on the field of battle,” he told the reporter Adam Liptak. In the picture, he stands surrounded by a dense group of dozens of high school football players, uniformed and kneeling at his feet. Kennedy is speaking with a football helmet in his hand, stretched high above his head in what looks like a gesture of command. Sam Alito, in his concurrence, claimed that Kennedy “acted in a purely private capacity.” That’s Kennedy’s version of events. The facts of what happened with Coach Kennedy at the school district are contested, but only because Kennedy himself keeps revising them.

The mainstream media reacted with outrage to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Anger over the decision was voiced on both the news and ...

Fellow Postie Jen Rubin wrote about how the justices are "super-legislators" who are "free to impose a view of the United States as a White, Christian and male-dominated society." He announced "f--- America" and whined that he was "renouncing his citizenship." She attacked the ruling for its "arrogance and [the] unapologetic nature of the opinion." "How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!" And the term "Uncle Thomas" then trended on Twitter because, well, it appears that Twitter staff are OK with racism as long as it’s directed at the right people. That’s what makes the Roe decision amazing. Two of the others included the monstrous cult nation North Korea and genocidal China. "I am seeing here only the worst side of what feels right now like a broken country," she wrote. I think the robes are red and blue." And Times senior political reporter Maggie Haberman made a senior level mistake tweeting that, "Pence calls for a national abortion ban," which was entirely false. And that was all but certain after a draft of the decision leaked in early May. She didn’t delete the original because why would you delete something so egregiously wrong? And NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd attacked the Court, complaining about the move to "take away" abortion rights.

3. Should abortion in states with bans be criminalized? Should those seeking abortions be penalized? Should healthcare providers aiding in the procedure be ...

On the other side of the debate, Vice Mike President Pence and others have called for a federal ban on abortion. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned that states may not ban abortion drugs based on a safety disagreement with the FDA, and that travel to other states for abortion and the distribution of information about how to obtain an abortion are protected by the US constitution. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called on President Joe Biden to set up abortion clinics on federal land. Some have asserted that Biden should pack the US Supreme Court to change the political balance, while some have renewed demands to eliminate the Senate’s filibuster in order to codify legal abortion as soon as possible. Many have also speculated about setting up abortion clinics on Native American tribal lands, a possibility that is complicated by the fact that tribes receive federal funding for healthcare. The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Justice Alito indicated the decisions to allow, regulate, or ban abortion lies with individual states. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. The decision was anticipated, having followed a May 2, 2022, leaked draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito (verified by Politico). The draft indicated the court would overturn Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join the majority, but wrote a concurring opinion that would have upheld Mississippi’s 15-week ban that was being challenged, without overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday in support of a high school football coach who knelt on the 50-yard line and prayed after games, paving the way for a ...

The Supreme Court says that a high school football coach who knelt and prayed on the field after games is protected by the Constitution.

Kennedy, a Christian, is a former football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington. He started coaching at the school in 2008 and initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. Concerned about being sued for violating students’ religious freedom rights, the school asked him to stop his practice of kneeling and praying while still “on duty” as a coach after the game. When he continued to kneel and pray on the field, the school put him on paid leave. The decision is the latest in a line of Supreme Court rulings for religious plaintiffs. All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys. The coach and his attorneys at First Liberty Institute, a Christian legal group, were among those cheering the decision.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday in support of a high school football coach who knelt on the 50-yard line and prayed after games, paving the way for a ...

One bright spot for judicial liberals in an otherwise bleak week. Fog blankets the exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ruling in favor of Nance and giving a victory to death penalty opponents was also required, Kagan explained, to respect a line of three cases in which, in 2005, 2009 and 2015, the court had turned back challenges to lethal injection. If the inmate obtains his requested relief,” she said “it is because he has persuaded a court that the State could readily use his proposal to execute him.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard Nance’s case in December 2020 and again in April 2021, said that he could not proceed with his suit. The court ruled that because Georgia did not authorize execution by firing squad, his challenge, in effect, was designed to prevent him from being executed at all. Kagan, writing for the unusual majority alignment, said that a habeas petition would only be appropriate if Nance was suing to “invalidate his death sentence” and prevent the state from executing him at all. Nonetheless, Nance brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal law that authorizes citizens to sue in federal court for the deprivation of rights. Such appeals to precedent did not work in last week’s gun or abortion decisions, of course, which suggests that the conservative activist justices will ignore or trash precedent when it suits their political purposes. An inmate in Georgia who feared the pain of lethal injection wanted to be executed by firing squad instead, and the court agreed to let his request proceed — reasoning on the very narrow grounds of how inmates can file appeals, rather than anything about the substance of his execution. Instead of lethal injection, he wants to be executed by a firing squad. It highlights the dilemmas facing the court’s liberals on a conservative dominated bench, and offers a clear example of how they are playing defense. Federal law imposes a one-year deadline for filing federal habeas corpus petitions and requires that people seeking such relief must bring all claims in a single action. Last week, when the court did what was widely expected on gun rights and abortion, it handed down a surprising death penalty decision — but we need to look carefully to understand why they defied expectations.

You know the story of Colin Kaepernick, who knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality in the 2016 NFL season, and subsequently found himself ...

You can select 'Manage settings' for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls. Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. Click here to find out more about our partners. - Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools. At the same time, lower courts have generally forbidden public ...

The Supreme Court is empowering Christianity as the United States becomes less religious. It's blurring the line between church and state as Republican ...

That’s in part because the United States is becoming more diverse in a variety of ways. White Christians are still a majority, as are Christians in general. This tracks with the increase in the number of Americans who have stepped away from organized religion or religion altogether. As The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes noted in his coverage of Kennedy, these decisions joined others from the court this session in which religious interests were bolstered. That’s down from 98 percent in 1968 (which, if you’re curious, was several years after prayer was banned in schools). The Supreme Court is empowering Christianity as the United States becomes less religious.

Sorenson, who teaches classes on judicial politics and constitutional law, says the decision, although not unexpected, is nonetheless a monumental one that ...

What’s next for the nation is a long-term battle over abortion access waged in states and in our federal elected branches. To this end, a recent CBS News/YouGov survey shows that Americans disapprove of the Dobbs decision by an eighteen-point margin, with an additional Marist poll finding that 56 percent believe the decision was politically motivated, rather than based in law, with 21 percent of polled Republicans agreeing. Despite the majority’s assertion that Dobbs should not be construed as such, nothing in the opinion’s doctrine effectively limits that interpretation. Women residing in these thirteen states will be forced to seek abortion services elsewhere, creating an even starker divide between those who can afford such a trip and those who cannot. The court’s decision to leave abortion laws up to individual states creates a national divide where some women will have relatively simple access to abortion services while others simply will not. So, what did the court do in this seventeenth overturning of landmark precedents?

The historic Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade's constitutional right to an abortion will create a seismic shift in the healthcare industry, ...

And as I said earlier, it is plain wrong.” It is dangerous. The historic Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v.

The first lady commented publicly on the Supreme Court's decision for the first time in an interview with CBS News.

The Supreme Court decision did not come as a complete surprise to White House officials. Democrats argue that the only way to fully restore abortion rights would be to codify it in law. "My message is, let's not give up, let's keep working.

Without Roe, abortion is now a state-by-state issue. Is nationwide action by Congress the next frontier?

They likened what the Court was doing to toppling a Jenga tower of rights, and repeatedly underscored that what was guiding the majority opinion was nothing approximating law. There has been a slight tension in progressive commentary between this idea that Democrats in Washington have to do something, have to codify Roe and get rid of the filibuster, and, at the same time, this idea that the Court will do whatever it wants. He thinks that they would violate the right to travel, which, as I’m sure you know, is not in the text of the Constitution, either, and yet he thinks that one exists. If you read the section of the opinion that explains why Mississippi’s statute is constitutional under the new standard of review that the Court announced, the Court basically says in a single paragraph that Mississippi viewed fetuses as unborn human beings and that that was a rational basis for it to act on. I do think it means they have to figure out how to address this conservative wrecking ball that is standing in front of them. I’m extremely skeptical that they would allow Congress to codify a federal right to abortion. What it doesn’t answer, however, is whether a majority of the Court would believe that Congress possesses the authority under its enumerated or delegated powers to enact that legislation. It doesn’t seem like Democrats anytime soon are going to get rid of the filibuster and codify a bill into law that protects the right to abortion, but how do you think this Court might look at such a law? Therefore, we are enforcing and protecting fetal personhood and rights to life.” Would the six conservatives conclude that Congress lacks the authority to enact either version of the statute, or reject both of those theories? The second basis is that Congress might say, “We are enacting this legislation under our power to enforce Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We believe that fetuses are people. If Republicans take power in Congress and the White House, perhaps in 2024, they may try to pass a federal law banning abortion. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and returning the issue to the states, many of which have already enacted harsh bans on the procedure.

A group of GOP senators are introducing a resolution celebrating the work of the pro-life movement over the last 50 years, culminating in the reversal of ...

The resolution continues, "The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. "The Senate celebrates the courage, compassion, and commitment of the millions of individuals, nonpartisan organizations, and lawmakers who have advocated for life and labored tirelessly to overturn Roe v. EXCLUSIVE: A group of Republican senators are introducing a resolution in celebration of the pro-life movement's "historic victory" at the Supreme Court last week, in Dobbs v.

A federal judge had ordered lawmakers to redraw the state's six congressional districts to include two in which Black voters were in the majority.

After the census, the State Legislature, controlled by Republicans, enacted a voting map with a single district in which Black voters made up a majority. The court is set to hear arguments in the case, Merrill v. Milligan, when the justices return to the bench in October. Republican state officials say the Constitution allows only a limited role for the consideration of race in drawing voting districts. The dispute in Louisiana is part of a pitched battle over redistricting playing out across the country. The Supreme Court’s brief order, which included no reasoning, blocked the judge’s order and granted a petition seeking review in the case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated a Republican-drawn map of Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives districts that had been blocked by a judge ...

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com The eventual ruling, due by the end of June 2023, could make it harder for courts to consider race when determining whether an electoral district map violates the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, which bars voting practices that result in racial discrimination. Republicans have said the consideration of race in drawing electoral maps must be limited. Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a congressional map in Louisiana to remain in place for the next election, freezing a lower court ruling that said the ...

The court will hear arguments in that case on October 4. In court papers they echoed Dick's holding that "a remedial congressional plan can be implemented in advance of the 2022 election without excessive difficult or risk of voter confusion." A federal appeals court declined to put that ruling on hold and scheduled expedited hearings that are set to begin on July 8.

A federal judge had previously struck down the state's GOP-drawn map for "packing" Black voters into a single district.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court also blocked a lower court order that threw out Alabama’s maps. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s order would be put on ice pending a decision in Merrill v. Dick had ordered the Louisiana legislature to redraw the map with a second heavily Black district.

After a lower court found Louisiana's new congressional maps diluted the votes of Black voters, the Supreme Court put on hold an order for a second majority ...

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.

For abortion opponents, who see ending a pregnancy as tantamount to the murder of a fetus, these are unavoidable consequences of a moral wrong being corrected.

Yet so far, there are few details in the GOP-led states that are less likely to spend on health care and social programs. As if often the case after massive political showdowns that expose the country's divides, Americans are left to try to live their lives in the fallout. In some other states, however, the laws are even stricter and likely to draw more challenges. Performing an abortion in the Beehive State under the ban would be a second degree felony in most cases, according to the lawsuit. h, however, Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday said the administration was not looking at one idea -- using federal lands for abortion services in or around anti-abortion states. A Utah judge granted a temporary restraining order to block the state's "trigger ban" after the state's Planned Parenthood chapter filed suit over the weekend. , in a concurrence to the court's move last week, are ringing true. Wade decision enshrining the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. Democrats are considering how to bolster abortion rights in blue states against a possible push by future Republican majorities in Washington for a national ban. He has done exactly the opposite," Nancy Gertner, a retired district judge nominated by former President Bill Clinton, said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." Regardless of their philosophical positions on ending a pregnancy, leaders on both sides of the political aisle are grappling with governing challenges caused by the sudden end to legal abortion in some states. But Americans who favor abortion rights and live in states where they are now illegal feel themselves victims of unacceptable government intrusion into their decisions about their health and families.

A Utah judge Monday blocked that state's near-total abortion ban from going into effect for 14 days. Read more at Boston.com.

For instance, Wisconsin passed a law in 1849 banning abortions except to save the life of the mother. They also argue that state law is unclear on whether it bans an abortion prior to a fertilized egg implanting in the uterus. In May, a judge said the ban could not be enforced because it violates the state’s constitution. In Michigan, Planned Parenthood challenged a 1931 abortion ban ahead of last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Now that the high court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, abortion rights groups are seeking protection under state constitutions. In liberal Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, signed an executive order Friday that prohibits state agencies from assisting other states’ investigations into anyone who receives a legal abortion in Massachusetts. Rhode Island’s Democratic governor said he would sign a similar order. James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said the wave of suits from abortion rights advocates is not surprising. Also Monday, abortion rights advocates asked a Florida judge to block a new law there that bans the procedure after 15 weeks with some exceptions to save a mother’s life or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality, but no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking. In South Carolina, a federal court lifted its prior hold on an abortion restriction there, allowing the state to ban abortions after an ultrasound detects a heartbeat, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. Much of the initial court activity focused on “trigger laws,” adopted in 13 states that were designed to take effect swiftly upon last week’s ruling. The ruling is in effect pending a July 8 hearing. Planned Parenthood had challenged the law, which contains narrow exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s health, saying the law violates the equal protection and privacy provisions in the state constitution.

Tuesday's ruling states former state officials should have received preliminary exams before being charged for their roles in the Flint water crisis.

As the city struggled with water quality, it also saw an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease and deaths. "The prosecution cannot simply cut corners in order to prosecute defendants more efficiently. In May, attorneys for Lyon, Peeler and Baird argued in front of the Michigan Supreme Court that they were entitled to preliminary exams. The defense's opportunity to cross-examine witnesses typically is delayed. But they do not authorize the judge to issue indictments. Appeals to Newblatt's decision were rejected, bringing arguments to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The cases against former Gov. Rick Snyder and other top officials were thrown into doubt by the ruling.

“The one-man grand jury has been an important way to protect witnesses who would have never come forward for fear of deadly consequences for themselves, family members and friends,” Ms. Worthy said. “The Flint water crisis stands as one of this country’s greatest betrayals of citizens by their government,” Justice Richard H. Bernstein wrote in a concurring opinion. The buck stops with the governor,” said Marvin Davenport, who still drinks only bottled water. Who dropped the ball?” State law allows a Michigan judge acting as a one-person grand jury to investigate, subpoena witnesses and issue arrest warrants, the court ruled, but not to hand down unilateral indictments. “State employees should not be prosecuted or demonized for just doing their job,” said Mr. Lyon, who has maintained his innocence. The water crisis, which resulted in elevated lead levels among thousands of people in Flint, has left numerous families distrustful of the water supply, even as city officials insist that it is now safe to drink. Some among Flint’s 81,000 residents had called for years for charges against Mr. Snyder and others, and had criticized an emergency oversight policy that allowed state officials to take control of the financially challenged city government and change the water source. Still, Flint’s mayor, Sheldon Neeley, who said his residents continued to distrust government, said the decision was a disappointment. For defendants who had said from the start that criminal charges were wrong and politically motivated, the ruling on Tuesday marked vindication. But Ms. Nessel’s team had those cases dismissed in 2019 before filing new charges against several of the same officials. The Supreme Court, in a 6-0 ruling, said on Tuesday that single-person grand juries, which have long been used in Michigan, could not be deployed in that way.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that a judge had no authority to issue indictments in the Flint water scandal.

Most of the money is going to children. The Flint water switch and its consequences have been investigated for crimes since 2016 when then-Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, appointed Todd Flood as special prosecutor. Lyon and Michigan’s former chief medical executive, Dr. Eden Wells, were charged with involuntary manslaughter for nine deaths related to Legionnaires’ disease when Flint’s water system might have lacked enough chlorine to combat bacteria in the river water. That was a ruinous decision: Lead from old pipes flowed through the system for 18 months in the majority-Black city. “There are no velvet ropes in our criminal justice system,” Hammoud proudly declared in 2021 when charges were filed. They couldn’t do what they tried to do.”

The justices agreed with a request by the state's Republican secretary of state to put on hold U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's order that the state create a ...

“But the Court’s case law in this area is notoriously unclear and confusing.” It involves what Republicans say is a conflict between the demands of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that race not play too prominent a role in government decisions. The Supreme Court majority on Tuesday did not supply a reason for granting the state’s request, as is common in emergency orders.

As with guns and abortion, the liberals on the Court are growing weary of their colleagues' “amateur efforts at history.”

“The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion,” Sotomayor writes. “As he said he would, Kennedy prayed out loud in the middle of the football field immediately after the conclusion of the first game after his lawyer’s letter was sent, surrounded by players, members of the opposing team, parents, a local politician, and members of the news media with television cameras recording the event, all of whom had been advised of Kennedy’s intended actions through the local news and social media.” “There is only the ‘mere shadow’ of a conflict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Establishment Clause.” As the record in the case reflects, Coach Kennedy then “advertised in the area’s largest newspaper, and local and national TV stations, that he intended to defy BSD’s instructions not to publicly pray with his players while still on duty even though he said he might lose his job as a result,” Smith writes. History is written by the winners, the saying goes, and Gorsuch tries his best to portray Kennedy as a martyr of a school district bent on his destruction. “When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose [of disfavoring a particular religion],” Sotomayor wrote, quoting an earlier case, “it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides.” Viewing Trump’s statements as a candidate and actions as president as a whole, she wrote, “a reasonable observer would readily conclude that” his ban “was motivated by hostility and animus toward the Muslim faith.”

COMMENTARY | The case is noteworthy because the court has now decided that public school employees can pray when supervising students.

Kennedy raised two major claims: that the school board violated his rights to freedom of speech and also to the free practice of his religion. He claimed that the board violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the Supreme Court’s majority agreed 6-3. Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that “a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause [does not] require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. At the end of October, officials placed him on paid leave for violating their directive and eventually chose not to renew his one-year contract. From my perspective as a specialist in education law, the case is noteworthy because the court has now decided that public school employees can pray when supervising students. Bremerton School District – the Supreme Court’s first case directly addressing the question – the court ruled that a school board in Washington state violated a coach’s rights by not renewing his contract after he ignored district officials’ directive to stop kneeling in silent prayer on the field’s 50-yard line after games.

"The View" hosts criticized the Supreme Court decision allowing a high school football coach to pray on the field, claiming the Court wants a "theocracy."

"The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion." If you’re the leader of the team and I was an athlete, I would feel and this is what Sunny and I were discussing, that you’re looking for game time, playing time, you’re looking to be favored, some people are competing to be the captain of the team, it’s not lost on anyone that when someone in authority is doing something and saying ‘come one and all,' that you wouldn’t feel a pressure from a public school employee," Haines said. "A lot of Americans kind of disagree with that interpretation of the First Amendment and say the decision basically erases the line between church and state, and really, you know, we had some questions earlier, would the same be given to if it was a Muslim coach, would he have the same rights?