Tag: Supreme Court

Washington HS football coach Joseph Kennedy reinstated after Supreme Court decision

Bremerton (Wash.) assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy reinstated after Supreme Court decision regarding prayer after games.

Bremerton (Wash.) assistant high school football coach Joseph Kennedy has been reinstated after getting fired for praying on the field after games in 2015. Seven years after he was fired and the subsequent lawsuit for the termination, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Constitution protects his private religious practice.

Kennedy says he never forced players to participate in the prayers, per Yahoo Sports.

“The coach sued after he claimed he was unjustly fired in 2015 for praying on the field after football games, an activity which he did for seven years without the district raising an issue. In 2015, Kennedy was notified that the district was concerned about his praying, which it claimed students likely felt pressured to participate in since it was a regular ritual. Kennedy did not require his players to participate in prayer alongside him although he gave the opportunity to do so if they chose.”

Bremerton is 6-2 this season and has a road game against Sequim (Wash.) tonight.

More Stories:

High School Football Playoffs: Start dates in each state (plus D.C.), and how to watch

Kanye closes Donda Academy, home of 3 major recruits; school reopens hours later

[listicle id=101502080]

Seahawks receivers D.K. Metcalf, Tyler Lockett share support for women

The news brought on protests nationwide as well as widespread condemnation from professional athletes, including a few Seahawks players.

The Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade yesterday, a federal law that enabled women to get abortions legally. That is now left up to individual states, many of which are already adopting laws restricting that right.

The news brought on protests nationwide as well as widespread condemnation from professional sports teams and athletes, including a few Seahawks players. Here’s what receivers Tyler Lockett and D.K. Metcalf shared.

The wisest man we know is former Seattle receiver Doug Baldwin, who shared some thoughts that coincide with his faith.

Earlier this week the Supreme Court also struck down a New York law that restricted concealed carry, making it easier for anyone acoss the U.S. to carry a handgun.

However you feel about either issue, the court’s decision to take away the rights of some while enabling them for others is a very bad development for a nation that is already divided.

[listicle id=90605]

Supreme Court to hear case of HS football coach who lost his job after postgame prayers with players

The Supreme Court said that it will hear the case of a Washington high school football coach who lost his job after praying with players.

The Supreme Court said late last week that it will hear the case of a Washington high school football coach who lost his job after praying with players and coaches.

Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach at Bremerton High School, said he was “called” to offer private prayers to players and coaches of both teams in 2015, according to the Washington Post. An opposing coach filed a complaint about Kennedy’s postgame prayers and Kennedy and the school district went on to battle “over accommodations of his religious exercise.”

Kennedy ultimately did not return to the school after 2015, as he worked as an assistant coach on a contract that was evaluated at the end of each year.

Kennedy’s legal battle with the Bremerton school district has raged on since 2015. He has lost twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the case splitting the judges. Kennedy’s case reached the Supreme Court in 2019, but justices declined to take it on, saying the lower courts had more to decide. However, four justices indicated that they were interested in the issue and could hear the case at a later date.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the Ninth Circuit’s decision, saying that its language could “be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith — even when the coach is plainly not on duty. I hope that this is not the message that the Ninth Circuit meant to convey.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh backed Alito Jr.

Kennedy will be represented by religious legal group First Liberty Institute, and Bremerton by Americans United for Separation of Church and State when the case is heard before the Supreme Court.

“No teacher or coach should lose their job for simply expressing their faith while in public,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and chief executive of First Liberty. “By taking this important case, the Supreme Court can protect the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of punishment.”

Americans United, however, say Kennedy and his legal team have misrepresented facts about the case.

“This case is not about a school employee praying silently during a private religious devotion,” Laser said in a statement. “Rather, this case is about protecting impressionable students who felt pressured by their coach to participate repeatedly in public prayer, and a public school district that did right by its students and families.”

[lawrence-related id=101492218]

NCAA changing outlook on name, image and likeness, moving toward temporary solution

NCAA considering temporary solution where schools in states with NIL laws will follow them, schools in states without will make own rules.

The NCAA appears headed toward a temporary solution regarding college athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness that will involve many schools setting their own individual policies on the matter, two people familiar with the association’s deliberations told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The NCAA Board of Governors and the Division I Board of Directors — the association’s top policy-making groups — are scheduled to hold a joint meeting Thursday with an eye toward moving the membership toward a policy stance rather than a rules change.

While some of the particulars of that policy remain to be determined, the basic construct currently under consideration would have schools in states with laws related to name, image and likeness (NIL) follow those laws and schools in states without NIL laws decide for themselves how to proceed. The schools in states without NIL laws would then police themselves.

“What’s going to drive people nuts is that everything is going to be gray,” one of the people said. “Nothing is going to be black and white. Chaos may be too strong a word, but clearly there’s going to be uncertainty for a period of time. That’s just going to be life.”

Eight states have passed laws that will allow athletes to make money from their NIL beginning July 1 or whenever their schools choose. Bills with July 1 effective dates are on the desks of governors in three other states. Altogether, about 15 states could have NIL laws in effect by Sept. 1.

OPINION:  Supreme Court isn’t buying NCAA model, and neither are the rest of us

ANALYSIS:  What NCAA ruling means for college sports, athletes

NCAA:  President Mark Emmert says legal maneuvering in Alston case not done

Because of this, NCAA President Mark Emmert has been adamant that the association must find a solution for athletes in states without such laws.

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in the Alston antitrust case is prompting the association’s change in approach from what in January had been a highly detailed set of rules changes that included a variety of limits on athletes’ NIL activity and had been was set for a vote by the NCAA Division I Council, the division’s day-to-day policy-making panel.

The high court unanimously ruled that the NCAA’s rules on athlete compensation are subject to detailed antitrust analysis, and such an analysis showed that the association’s limits on education-related benefits for athletes violate the law.

Because of Monday’s ruling, “we’re going to have to have low to no regulation going forward” until a federal law is enacted that would override the state laws or the association can sort rules that it believes are compatible with the Supreme Court ruling,” said the other person familiar with the deliberations.

That means the extensive rules proposal that was to have been voted on in January is “not operational anymore because of the ruling on Monday. Low to no regulation will be the only way (for now). The January proposal does not offer that.”

Follow colleges reporter Steve Berkowitz on Twitter @ByBerkowitz

Supreme Court rules against NCAA in antitrust case in unanimous decision

The Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in a landmark antitrust case on Monday that will have a massive impact on college sports.

College sports will likely be changing as we know them in the near future as the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in a landmark antitrust case on Monday that specifically pertains to the NCAA’s ability to limit the benefits of college athletes.

USA TODAY’s Steve Berkowitz did a fantastic deep dive into what exactly this court case means and how it will impact collegiate sports soon:

The ruling will end the association’s nationwide limits on education-related benefits athletes can receive for playing college sports.

Athletes playing Division I men’s or women’s basketball or Bowl Subdivision football will be able to receive benefits from their schools that include cash or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation.

Among the other benefits that schools also can offer are scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school and paid internships after athletes have completed their collegiate sports eligibility.

Schools will not be required to provide these types of benefits, and conferences can impose prohibitions on certain benefits if their member schools so choose. However, conferences cannot act in concert. So, if a conference chooses to limit or prevent certain benefits, it risks giving a competitive advantage to other conferences.

The ruling was unanimous.

Obviously, there is a lot to digest there. But the thing that perhaps is the most eye-catching is that athletes may be permitted to receive benefits that include case or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation. Schools don’t have to do that, but one would have to think the ones that do will automatically have a pretty solid recruiting advantage over the ones that don’t.

The impact this could potentially have on athletes’ ability to profit off of their own name, image and likeness will also be fascinating to watch play out. For the NCAA to keep the status quo, they have to find a way to legitimately argue that they have their rules as a way to keep competitive balance and they will lose that without them.

The ruling seemed likely to have at least an indirect impact on the NCAA’s attempts to work through a range of other issues, including athletes’ ability to make money from non-university entities off their name, image and likeness (NIL).

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote: ” … there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary” antitrust legal analysis. Kavanaugh added that the NCAA  “must supply a legally valid” justification that “its remaining compensation rules” have sufficient value to promoting competitive balance that the benefits outweigh the harm being done to the athletes.

“As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification,” Kavanaugh wrote.

NIL activities have already been trending toward a point of far more flexibility for athletes with some states and schools already passing laws and rules that will allow the players to profit off of their NIL in the near future. This ruling is potentially forcing the issue in that department even more, as well.

At the end of the day, this comes down to the simple notion that it is being viewed as unconstitutional of the NCAA to be able to restrict the ability of the athletes to monetize themselves while they have that chance. Essentially, therein lies the rub and why these changes may be coming in a a major way very soon.

Sooners Wire and USA TODAY will continue to provide updates on this massive story as more updates become available.