The end of the past Supreme Court term saw the release of three decisions that carry life-and-death consequences: Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which rejected efforts to curb gun violence; and West Virginia v. E.P.A., which curtailed the federal agencys ability to protect the environment. A fourth major decision of those final weeks may not hold life in the balance, but it will have radical and far-reaching consequences for the First Amendment and religious speech.
The decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds that a public-high-school football coach has a constitutional right to publicly pray at the fifty-yard line after games. Using the words quiet or quietly ten times to describe the coachs prayers, Gorsuch dismisses any concerns that students may feel coerced to join him, as long as they are not expressly compelled to do so. The coachs conduct, Gorsuch finds, in an opinion joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, is fully protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, of course, states: 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. The establishment clause, which was cited by the school district, has traditionally been interpreted to prohibit government action that compels religious conduct, favors one religion over another, or endorses religion over non-religion. But Justice Gorsuch makes the astonishing claim that, because prayer is protected by both the speech and the free exercise references, it is doubly protected. This double protection means that the School Districts concern that the coachs prayers run afoul of the establishment clause is outgunned, two clauses against one. Does this mean that if I (1) petition the government to (2) hold a rally supporting the (3) printing of a pamphlet about my (4) new religion, Id be quadruply protected and could thereby trump other constitutional provisions, such as the equal protection clause of the FourteenthAmendment? The math quickly becomes absurd.
Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York Universitys School of Law, makes the compelling argument that the structure of the First Amendment is no accident. It is not a mere list of protected activities to be added to and subtracted from one another; rather, its language tracks how political ideas move from internal thought and belief to external conduct. First comes personal conviction, then public discussion and dissemination, and, finally, political action. The goal is the free expression of political will, which is essential to a functioning democracy. Neubornes analysis confirms what many media and First Amendment lawyers consider a truism: political speech is at the core of the First Amendments protections.
Protecting political speech, including speech that criticizes government officials, was the primary justification in the Supreme Courts unanimous landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which holds that government officials need to meet a very high burden of proof to succeed in defamation claims. In that decision, Justice William Brennan reasoned that, because political speech is central to democracy, debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. According to Justice Gorsuchs opinion, however, that long-held understanding of the central purpose of the First Amendment is wrong. In his view, it is government suppression of religious speech that is the core concern of the First Amendment, and what it was designed to protect against. Further, Gorsuchs finding that religious speech is doubly protected implies that political speechsay, about voting rights or womens rightsis only single protected.
This reasoning reveals a disturbing strain of thought: the idea that religion is under siege, and that religious speech and religious conduct in the public sphere need to be privileged. Gorsuch, in his opinion, inveighs against a government being hostile to religion. He specifically objects to the idea that we might preference secular activity over outward displays of religiosity. Instead of considering how secularism might make government activity neutral, open to believers of various faiths as well as nonbelievers, his thinking seems to be that, because of religious speechs double protection, it must take precedence. Anything less is an unconstitutional assault on religion.
Gorsuch employs the cartoonishly circular argument that, because the Bremerton School District, in Washington State, didnt want the coach to conduct prayers with his team, it clearly does not see that behavior as part of his official duties and, therefore, his praying is private religious conduct, which must be protected from government restrictions. By that logic, any religious conduct by government employees that is not part of their official dutiesa D.M.V. clerk, say, who gives out religious literature to people applying for drivers licenses, or a clerk who tries to convince gay couples that their marriage is sinfulwould become protected speech.
Gorsuch argues that, if visible religious conduct of government employees is banished, then teachers will be prohibited from wearing yarmulkes or saying a prayer of thanks over a sandwich in the break room. The fact that theres no evidence that any government office has sought to stop an employee from saying grace over their own lunch notwithstanding, that argument is a false equivalence. Such personal conduct is worlds apart from that of a coach, who may be responsible for making college or scholarship recommendations for the students on his team, openly conducting a religious practice on the field, while players and families are watching. Gorsuch writes that there was no coercion, because students were not required to participate. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, included multiple photographs showing the coach kneeling in prayer surrounded by players that are evocative of a revival meeting. Even if those students willingly joined their coach in prayer, its likely that some students feigned belief, or felt excluded by choosing not to join the ritual.) Furthermore, the law recognizes all kinds of situations in which implied promises or threats are sufficient grounds for legal sanctions. Ask any first-year prosecutor whether an explicit threat is necessary to bring an extortion charge.
But religious maximalism is currently all the rage on the Supreme Court. Justice Alitos opinion overturning Roe goes out of its way to dig up arcane historical references to prove that the drafters of the Constitution didnt intend to protect abortion. But there is an inescapable sense that the Justices acceptance of the validity of the belief that life begins at conception is determined by his personal religious views. Alito, too, has publicly bemoaned hostility toward religion, which he calls secular orthodoxy, and blamed it for what he calls anti-Catholic prejudice. Justice Barrett and her family have been affiliated with People of Praise, an insular conservative Catholic group that rejects homosexuality; practices ecstatic Christian traditions, such as speaking in tongues; and is described as a covenant community. She testified during her Senate confirmation hearing that her religious beliefs do not influence her jurisprudence, but also that she did not view Roe as a super precedent. Clearly, most Justices have religious beliefs, and there are both liberal and conservative Catholicsno one should say that religious beliefs determine political affiliation. Still, the idea that religious speech (and necessarily, activity) must be protected over and above other kinds of speechor over secularism generallyis grounded in a belief about the importance of religion in public life. But what will happen if government employees must be free to express and act upon their religious convictions in their jobs? How does a pluralist society function in that case?
Chief Justice John Roberts famously bristled at the idea that there are Obama judges or Trump judges, insisting that members of the federal judiciary do their level best to be fair to those who appear before them. (When I was in law school, there was no quicker way to get cut down by a professor than to cite the Justices political leanings as an explanation for why they had reached a particular decision.) But perhaps a clearer distinction exists between Justices who believe that the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion means that government employees must be able to wield their religious beliefs unconstrained, and those who believe that, in a pluralist society, people have the right not to have the religion of others foisted upon them by government employees. As the old saying goes, Your right to swing your arms stops where my nose begins. Telling government employees to stop swinging their religion at the public should not be unconstitutional.
Link:
Justice Neil Gorsuchs Radical Reinterpretation of the First Amendment - The New Yorker
- Supreme Court revives NRA's lawsuit alleging that New York violated its First Amendment rights - POLITICO - June 2nd, 2024
- Opinion | The NRA deserved its First Amendment win at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post - The Washington Post - June 2nd, 2024
- Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory - Vox.com - June 2nd, 2024
- NRA v. Vullo: A Big First Amendment Win at the High Court - Cato Institute - June 2nd, 2024
- Theres a First Amendment right to express Second Amendment views - Washington Examiner - June 2nd, 2024
- Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) - Reason - June 2nd, 2024
- In a Victory for Assange and First Amendment, UK Court Grants Right to Appeal Truthout - Truthout - June 2nd, 2024
- Supreme Court Says Government Bullying Can Violate the First Amendment - Goldwater Institute - June 2nd, 2024
- Preemption, the First Amendment, and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Todays Decisional Menu - SCOTUS Today - The National Law Review - June 2nd, 2024
- University of Michigan police officers suspension violated First Amendment, jury finds - MLive.com - June 2nd, 2024
- SCOTUS Unanimously Sides With NRA in First Amendment Case - The Reload - June 2nd, 2024
- Video is at the center of First Amendment case against North East School District - GoErie.com - June 2nd, 2024
- NRA gets 1st Amendment win as Supreme Court blasts NY official who pressured banks to cut ties with gun lobby - The Independent - June 2nd, 2024
- Cleveland Cliffs and its CEO should put on the big boy pants and stop going against the 1st Amendment: Today - cleveland.com - June 2nd, 2024
- TikToks Future in U.S. Depends on Bet on First Amendment - The New York Times - May 15th, 2024
- Opinion | Campus protests, young people and importance of the First Amendment - Bridge Michigan - May 15th, 2024
- Shielded Speech: Exploring the First Amendment in Anonymous Online Discourse - Disruptive Competition Project - May 15th, 2024
- The 8 First Amendment cases the Supreme Court will decide this term - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 15th, 2024
- Umut Bayramoglu: The night the First Amendment died on Jayhawk Boulevard, and why you should care (Column) - The Lawrence Times - May 15th, 2024
- Court dismisses First Amendment lawsuit filed against Palomar Health by one of its directors - The San Diego Union-Tribune - May 15th, 2024
- Yolo County group gets settlement with county over 1st Amendment - ABC10.com KXTV - May 15th, 2024
- TikTok creators sue to block law that could lead to a ban - The Washington Post - May 15th, 2024
- Letter to the Editor: That remarkable First Amendment Muddy River News - Muddy River News - May 15th, 2024
- TikTok sues the US over attempts to force its Chinese parent to sell the social media platform, citing First Amendment - ABC News - May 15th, 2024
- Sunday Business Page: Campus protests and the First Amendment - CBS Pittsburgh - May 15th, 2024
- First Amendment protections for public comment at government meetings - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 15th, 2024
- Survey shows: Most Americans are concerned about the future of free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 15th, 2024
- First Amendment argument 'not in play' with TikTok bill rebuttal: Ajit Pai - Fox Business - May 15th, 2024
- On resistance, revolution, and dissent campus protests in 44 states and the District of Columbia First Amendment ... - Foundation for Individual... - May 15th, 2024
- The Antisemitism Controversy Shows the Wisdom of the First Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation - The Future of Freedom Foundation - May 15th, 2024
- Hate speech, the First Amendment and the college conundrum - The Hill - January 15th, 2024
- Big Oil Is Weaponizing The First Amendment - The Lever - January 15th, 2024
- Robert Post: 'There is growing pessimism about the future of free speech in the United States' First Amendment ... - Foundation for Individual Rights... - January 15th, 2024
- Court sends case of prosecutor suspended by DeSantis back to trial judge over First Amendment issues - The Associated Press - January 15th, 2024
- Professor's Lawyers Argue: Private University Student Newspapers Are Not Entitled to First Amendment Protection - Reason - January 15th, 2024
- Appeals court says DeSantis violated Andrew Warren's First Amendment rights - Creative Loafing Tampa - January 15th, 2024
- Lawsuit Over UC Santa Cruz's Diversity Statements Dismissed on Standing Grounds - Reason - January 15th, 2024
- First Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - The Associated Press - December 28th, 2023
- First Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - NBC News - December 28th, 2023
- Project Veritas's First Amendment Claim to the Diary of Biden's Daughter Denied By Judge - Vanity Fair - December 28th, 2023
- Veritas' First Amendment claim in Biden's daughter's diary rejected by judge - Axios - December 28th, 2023
- 2023 Year in Review: The U.S. Supreme Court's Busy Year of Free Speech and Tech Cases - EFF - December 28th, 2023
- Cook County Sheriffs Office accused of retaliation and First Amendment violations - Chicago Reporter - December 28th, 2023
- The Religious Liberty Step Too Far That Could Destroy the Common Good If We Let It - Justia Verdict - December 28th, 2023
- First Amendment Likely Protects Even Unlicensed Engineers' Right to Provide Expert Opinion in Government ... - Reason - December 28th, 2023
- Social Media Censorship and The First Amendment - Reason - December 28th, 2023
- Voices from the State University of New York at Fredonia: Banning of books contradicts our First Amendment - Evening Observer - December 28th, 2023
- 1st Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - Santa Fe New Mexican - December 28th, 2023
- Project Veritas First Amendment | US and World News | wvnews.com - WV News - December 28th, 2023
- 1st Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - News10NBC - December 28th, 2023
- 1st Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - WAND - December 28th, 2023
- First Amendment Claim Rejected in Project Veritas Case Focused on Diary of Biden's Daughter - NEWSnet media - December 28th, 2023
- Trump Demands Dismissal Of GA RICO Citing First Amendment Right To Ask Politicians To Do Crimes - Above the Law - December 20th, 2023
- Courts Are Choosing TikTok Over Children - The Atlantic - December 20th, 2023
- Legislators Don't Have First Amendment Right Not to Show Up to Legislature - Reason - December 20th, 2023
- These university presidents need to go back to school on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - December 20th, 2023
- Is saying 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' protected speech under the First Amendment? - Foundation for Individual Rights in... - December 20th, 2023
- UPDATE: Annapolis First Amendment Auditor Sentenced to 90 Days for Criminal Trespassing at Calvert Health ... - Southern Maryland News Net - December 20th, 2023
- Free Speech and "Harassment Restraining Orders" - Reason - December 20th, 2023
- East Lansing ordered to pay farm more than $800000 in First Amendment lawsuit - WKAR - December 20th, 2023
- RCFP urges SCOTUS to reverse ruling in First Amendment retaliation case - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - December 20th, 2023
- What are the legal, practical bounds of free speech on college campuses? - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - December 20th, 2023
- Standing Guard | SCOTUS To Hear First Amendment Case | An Official Journal Of The NRA - America's 1st Freedom - December 20th, 2023
- What the college presidents got wrong about the First Amendment - WBUR News - December 20th, 2023
- Big win for the First Amendment in Virginia - Washington Examiner - December 20th, 2023
- Trump, in filing, asks judge to dismiss 'invalid' Georgia election interference charges - ABC News - December 20th, 2023
- First Amendment Auditor Sentenced To 90 Days In Jail For Criminal Trespass In Calvert County - Bay Net - December 20th, 2023
- The Bill of Rights Super-Quiz Civic Nebraska - Civic Nebraska - December 20th, 2023
- Second Amendment Roundup: Second Circuit Opines on New York's Gun Restrictions - Reason - December 20th, 2023
- Opinion | University presidents get schooled in free speech and antisemitism - The Washington Post - December 20th, 2023
- Is the racist tirade in a viral TikTok out of Midvale protected by the First Amendment? - KUTV 2News - December 20th, 2023
- Judge rejects town's ban on 'thin blue line' flag: 'Resounding win for the First Amendment' - Alabama's News Leader - November 17th, 2023
- An unprecedented First Amendment issue: Trump cites gag order appeal as reason for Thanksgiving extension to support three-pronged attack on Jack... - November 17th, 2023
- Trump strangely not mentioned during SCOTUS hearing on First Amendment case over encouraging violations of federal law - Law & Crime - March 31st, 2023
- Werewolf Therapeutics - On March 16, Entered Into A First ... - Kalkine Media - March 23rd, 2023
- Lawmakers submit more than 140 amendments as House opens process for first time in seven years - The Hill - January 30th, 2023
- National organization wants to join legal fight over Beachwood, police chiefs efforts to unmask anonymous cr - cleveland.com - January 30th, 2023
- Bill of Rights | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - January 22nd, 2023
- 10 Facts About the First Amendment and Elections - January 22nd, 2023
- Freedom of Speech - Origins, First Amendment & Limits - HISTORY - January 22nd, 2023