Talk:Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/praying-bremerton-football-coach-joe-kennedy-quits-after-one-game/

Lemon v. Kurtzman[edit]

Did this case explicitly overruled Lemon v. Kurtzman? SoupI (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gorsuch and Sotomayor disagree on this, but their area of agreement is enough to leave Lemon in the summary box as having been overturned, I believe. Gorsuch argues the court had already "abandoned" Lemon in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. Sotomayor says this is the decision that "overrules" Lemon, and that the plurality decision in American Legion simply said 'that application of the Lemon test to “longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices” was ill-advised for reasons specific to those contexts.' Either way, Lemon is not good law after this decision. Kinetic yankee (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the various opinions the Court issued in American Legion, and my confidence in my previous comment--and Sotomayor's characterization of the state of play of Lemon prior to Kennedy--is bolstered. it looks like a strong case for saying the Court stopped shy in American Legion of overruling Lemon (which therefore makes Kennedy the case that overruled Lemon). A majority of six justices, in two separate opinions, are strongly critical of Lemon, with comments like "the Court has many times either expressly declined to apply the [Lemon] test or simply ignored it." But they do not claim to have overruled Lemon. It is left to Thomas, in a concurring opinion, to write "I would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts." Thomas' comment is the only appearance of "overrule" in American Legion; the other justices see Lemon as being of limited use, but they don't say it's never good law. Kinetic yankee (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explicit overrule of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The SCOTUS not applying the Lemon test to determine the case didn't mean that Lemon is overturned. Sotomayor stated that the court overruled Lemon, but other justices didn't say so, merely rejecting the use of Lemon on this case. This means that Lemon test would still be around to be used, though it may not be used for future cases. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on mind that often decisions will not explicitly say X is overturned but the legal analysts will come to read that. There is no formL process by which a past decision is officially overturned. Masem (t) 15:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Revert My Edits Again[edit]

You are showing bias toward The Satanic Temple and are defrauding the public. You are not being encyclopedic. RandomFrequentFlyerDent (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the past few revisions of this page, and found a mention of a supposed coworker of Kennedy, Wesley Bonetti, being a practicing Satanist, most recently in this revision and reverted in the following revision. I'm having trouble finding secondary sources that even mention this Wesley Bonetti as being related to the case, and I can't find sources saying Kennedy is, or ever has been, employed by Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot include this information without first finding a credible source (see: WP:NOR). Could you perhaps find an example? Thanks, Askarion ^{💬●✒️} 23:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of the sources I've seen mention this supposed coworker or the involvement of the Satanic Temple. There needs to be clear secondary sourcing of why this is important. --Masem (t) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]