WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge from a former Washington state public high school football coach who wanted to pray mid-field after games in a Friday afternoon orders list adding five new cases to its docket.
As is tradition, immediately after high school football games, the teams and coaches meet at midfield and shake hands. However, unlike a traditional public high school game, Bremerton High School’s coach, Joseph Kennedy, would pray. Sometimes he would pray alone but sometimes with players on the team. The prayers evolved into motivational speeches often including religious content.
In 2015, the school district became aware of Kennedy’s activities and told him they were unacceptable. While Kennedy attempted to comply, he ultimately felt as though his constitutional rights were being infringed so he requested a religious accommodation to the school’s policy under Title VII. The district denied his request. Kennedy refused to comply with the district’s ruling that he could not continue praying at the 50-yard line so it put him on administrative leave and he did not return the next season.
Citing violations of his rights to the free speech and free exercise clauses, Kennedy filed a suit against the district. A federal judge denied his request for a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Kennedy appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but was denied in 2019. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the denial but said they didn’t necessarily agree with the decision.
Kennedy’s current application at the court asks the justices to overrule a Ninth Circuit decision finding that prominent prayer is not private speech that is beyond the control of a school.
Along with the grant in Kennedy’s case, the high court also agreed to hear four other cases.
The court will hear a case concerning civil rights claims against a police officer for failing to provide Miranda rights. Terence Tekoh worked at a hospital where a patient accused him of sexual assault. A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, Carlos Vega, questioned Tekoh, who confessed to the assault.
Following a trial where that confession was used against him, Tekoh alleged Vega fabricated evidence, coerced Tekoh’s confession, and violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
A Georgia prisoner, Michael Nance, has presented the court with a method-of-execution challenge. Nance alleges that lethal injection would be torturous for him because of his compromised veins and instead would prefer a firing squad. However, the only authorized method of execution in Georgia is lethal injection.
The 11th Circuit ruled that Nance had to bring his claim via habeas petition since execution by firing squad was not permitted under Georgia law. The court will have to decide if habeas is the proper procedural motion for method-of-execution challenges like Nance’s.
In a habeas case on the transfer of prisoners, the court will hear from Raymond Twyford III, who was convicted of the aggravated murder of Richard Frank and sentenced to death. Although Twyford waived his Miranda rights and confessed, he has been fighting his conviction.
Twyford has argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting evidence related to brain deficits from a head injury. He requested that his prison warden transport him to the Ohio State University Medical Center for neurological testing but insisted his request was not related to discovery.
A district court granted the request but it was stayed for 30 days because of Covid-19. The warden appealed and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The case asks the court if the All Writs Act — instead of a habeas petition — can be used by federal courts to order transportation of prisoners.
The court will also hear a case concerning the denial of benefits for a veteran. Kevin George applied for benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs after a mental health episode and paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis forced him to leave the Marine Corps shortly after joining. Benefits were denied because the regulation at the time did not require the government to make a rebuttal against the presumption that George’s condition was aggravated by his service.
Years on, an unrelated case wound up invalidating the VA’s regulation. George asked for his claim to be reconsidered in light of this new ruling, but the Federal Circuit found that George could not have his claim reconsidered because the VA had applied the existing law at the time. The justices will be asked to consider if veterans can revisit decisions based on regulations that become invalid.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
