Summary of Argument
This Court has held that a pregame prayer at a high school football game violated the Establishment Clause because it had “the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious wor- ship.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 312 (2000). Applying this precedent, the lower courts concluded that Petitioner’s postgame prayers at high school football games also violated the Establishment Clause because they, too, coerced students to partici- pate in acts of religious worship. Pet. App. 17–23, 153–60.
Petitioner contends that there can be no coercion here, because he does not think he pressured any stu- dent athlete to participate in his prayers. Pet. Br. 5 (citing Petitioner’s own declaration). But whether Pe- titioner’s actions were coercive does not depend on Pe- titioner’s characterization of his actions, even if that characterization were accurate. But see JA 295 (Peti- tioner sought to “continue” his “practice of praying with students” (emphasis added)). Nor does the coer- cive effect of his postgame prayers turn on whether those prayers were well intentioned, Pet. Br. 7; but see Pet. App. 16 (finding that Petitioner intended to send a message about “appropriate behavior”), or whether Respondent disclaimed responsibility for them, Pet. Br. 9, 33. What matters is whether the student ath- letes felt coerced to participate in the prayers.
They did. “At least one student felt compelled to join Coach Kennedy’s post-game prayers, contrary to the player’s own beliefs, because he feared he would get less playing time if he did not participate.” Pet. App. 71. Some parents likewise indicated that “their children had participated in the prayers to avoid being separated from the rest of the team or to ensure play- ing time.” Pet. App. 136; see also JA 186, JA 356. Sev- eral students, and their parents, thanked Respondent for its actions to address the “awkward situations where they did not feel comfortable declining to join with the other players in Mr. Kennedy’s prayers.” JA 359. And when Petitioner did not visibly pray, none of his players did, either. JA 181.
The Court has observed that officially sponsored prayer in public schools poses “heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle co- ercive pressure.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992). The coercive pressure to participate in Peti- tioner’s prayers was anything but subtle. Petitioner prayed on the 50-yard line, immediately following the team’s games, before the players left the field, while spectators remained in the stands. Pet. App. 15, 72.
Petitioner’s actions created pressure to participate to which adolescent student athletes would likely succumb, even if doing so were contrary to their own be- liefs and even if the pressure was never explicit.3 The adolescent student athletes would be influenced to fol- low Petitioner’s lead because he controlled benefits they valued (such as playing time) and because of his status as a role model and authority figure. Com- pounding that direct pressure, the sight of some team- mates, along with classmates and community mem- bers, joining Petitioner in prayer influenced more re- luctant student athletes to do the same. This pressure to conform—whether explicit or implicit—was un- doubtedly amplified by an innate desire to abide by the norms of the team itself, for adolescents are espe- cially vulnerable to peer influence when faced with the possibility of social approval or disapproval.
The fact that most of the team joined Petitioner’s prayers meant that everyone else would likely feel compelled to do so as well. To refuse would be to risk social reprobation from Petitioner, teammates, and classmates. That student athletes felt both direct and indirect pressure—all traceable to Petitioner—to par- ticipate in a religious ritual led by a public high school employee underscores what is already well-known by this Court and well-studied in psychology and neuro- biology: Adolescents are behaviorally and neurobio- logically predisposed to follow the lead of authority figures, like coaches, and similarly susceptible to pres- sure—even unconscious, non-explicit pressure—to conform to their peers’ actions.
I. The Court must consider the coercive nature of Petitioner’s prayers from the perspective of an adoles- cent. Petitioner’s prayers most directly impacted ad- olescent student athletes. And as the Court has long recognized—including in cases involving prayer at public schools—psychological and neuroscientific re- search confirms that adolescents are especially sus- ceptible to outside influences. Recent scientific re- search, including neuroimaging work, confirms that this vulnerability is the result of two distinct, yet in- terconnected trajectories of adolescent brain develop- ment. While adolescents develop a heightened sensi- tivity to rewards around the time of puberty, includ- ing socioemotional rewards, their ability to control their impulses and regulate their behavior develops much more gradually. As a result of these dual sys- tems, rewards have far greater impact on adolescent behavior than adult behavior.
II. This Court, other courts, and even Petitioner himself have noted the influence that coaches have over adolescent student athletes. Coaches are role models with immense power to dispense rewards of great value to student athletes, such as roster spots, playing time, and college recommendations. That power, coupled with adolescents’ heightened reward sensitivity and still maturing self-control, gives coaches potent influence over athletes’ behavior— even when coaches do not apply explicit pressure. Moreover, because adolescents are especially inclined toward authority figures and role models, a coach’s status as an authority figure and respected mentor adds to his influence.
III. In addition to the influence Petitioner exerted as a coach and role model, the Court must also account for the compounding influence that peers, and team- mates in particular, have on one another. Adolescents are driven, more so than any other age group, by their desire for social approval among their peers, their heightened sensitivity to rewards in the presence of peers, and their fidelity to the team identity. Those salient influences were clearly at play here, where Pe- titioner’s prayers were attended not only by spectators and media but by a majority of the team. Here, too, the compounding effect of peer influence can be traced back to Petitioner. As a coach and role model for the team, the natural result of the direct coercive effect of Petitioner’s prayers was that some players would join—thereby increasing the pressure on their more reluctant teammates to do the same.