Joe Kennedy believed that his right to free speech and to exercise his
religious beliefs were violated as a result of the prayer ban. Ricketts argued that
the action in question was merely taking a knee on the field to recite a private
prayer. In response, the judges questioned the difference between public and
private prayer. To further accentuate their point, they alluded to a past event on
October 16 where Kennedy kneeled on the field and said an audible prayer in the
midst of many players. In opposition, Ricketts stated that on the night of the
following game, Kennedy purposely distanced himself from the team that
remained at the sidelines before performing his prayer. The district countered by
saying that Kennedy’s tradition violated their policy pertaining to the separation
of church and state, also known as The Establishment Clause. Since his
occupation put him in a position where even the most subtle religious institution
influences students to conform, he should have avoided any religious practice in
the presence of students that could have been viewed as coercive. In response to
the judges previous inquiry, Tierney declared that any setting where students
were present was deemed as public. Judge Milan Smith Jr. then questioned why
Kennedy’s tradition, which began in 2008, was not challenged by the district until
2015, after it was mentioned by a visiting school’s official. To this, Tierney
responded that when Kennedy was previously seen surrounded by numerous of
players, both from his team and occasionally the opposing team, the district
mistook it for merely an inspirational speech. As Kennedy’s case caught the
attention of many outside organizations, Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel for
First Liberty Institute, claimed that the case set a precedent for all religious
expression performed privately by educational employees. In addition, Sasser
argued that the ruling would ban many religious traditions, such as wearing a
hijab or yarmulke, thus stripping millions of Americans in the educational field of
their religious liberty rights.