Faith, Sports, and the Constitution (2025) By Kevin Weaver
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the intricate relationship between faith, sports, and constitutional law, particularly within the context of public education in the United States. I begin with my personal experiences as a student and educator, highlighting the coexistence of faith and athletics in school settings. I then underscore the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, detailing how recent Supreme Court rulings have shaped the legal landscape concerning religious expression in public schools. I next identify three theories of church-state relations: strict separation, neutrality, and accommodation, and examine landmark cases that illustrate the evolving judicial perspective on religious practices in schools and sports. Notable examples, such as the public expressions of faith by athletes like Tim Tebow and coaches like Dabo Swinney and Deion Sanders, are discussed to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of faith in the realm of public university athletics. Through this analysis, I invite readers to consider the broader implications of religious freedom and its intersection with public education and sports in contemporary society.
PREFACE
Growing up as a student and athlete in the public school system, my coaches often led us in prayer before meals, games, and after practices. Specifically, we recited the Lord’s Prayer together as a formality. When I became an educator, I continued this practice with my students, believing that praying with my team was one of the most noble community-building exercises we engaged in. I noticed similar prayer practices while teaching in a rural area. My experiences in education have shown me that in some cities and towns, many people have a deep identification with their faith, particularly the Christian faith. However, it wasn’t until a specific incident at a rural school where I taught and coached that I began to reconsider my group prayers with my players. At a public middle school in this rural area, a Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) group held Bible study sessions in the school library every Wednesday before the start of school. These sessions were led by one of the basketball coaches. Initially, the library was open to all students during this time. After a few Wednesdays, I noticed that the FCA group had stopped meeting. When I inquired about it, I learned that they had received complaints from some parents. These parents felt that their children, who were in the library but not participating in the FCA meetings, were subjected to listening to Bible study messages. At the time, I was surprised by the school’s decision to force the group to discontinue their meetings. However, as I began to study law, I became more aware of the complexities surrounding faith-based and religious activities within public schools. This sparked my interest in examining the relationship between the church, state, public schools, and sports.
I. Introduction
For public school educators, coaches, and administrators, the line between placing a division between church and state and permitting the free exercise of one’s faith can be blurry. For those working in public education, whether as teachers, coaches, or administrators, it is essential to understand not only the history of the relationship between educational institutions and the state in the United States but also recent Supreme Court decisions that have set precedents for future cases.[1] The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[2] These are known as the Religion Clauses, specifically the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause negates the government’s ability to establish or favor religion. In contrast, the government should not act in ways that deny people the freedom to exercise their faith, including the freedom not to exert any faith at all. In this context, the term’ government’ refers to the state, or Congress, and encompasses all government entities, including public schools and their employees.
To better understand the juxtaposition of church and state in the United States, knowing the three theories of thought may be helpful. First is the strict separation theory, a hard wall between church and state. Next is the theory of neutrality, which is neither a hard wall nor accommodating. Third is accommodation, permitting religion into public governance.[3] The Judiciary has played a major role in the evolution of Church and State, including, more recently, cases involving school choice and religious speech.[4] The rights extracted from the religion clauses have created an intriguing constitutional dichotomy. These opposing views are a microcosm of a broader societal discussion. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a coach’s prayer with his players and opposing team members on the field at the end of the game was a lawful exercise of free speech and the free exercise of religion.[5] Nearly twenty years earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer led by school officials over the public address system prior to a game violated the Establishment Clause.[6] Juxtaposing these two cases later in this article helps set the discussion surrounding the free exercise and establishment clauses in a sporting context.
II. Free Exercise
Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
In 2006, Tim Tebow rose to stardom at the University of Florida as a dual-threat quarterback. He also gained notoriety for his touchdown celebrations in which he would kneel in prayer. Soon after, in 2008, Dabo Swinney became head football coach for Clemson University. Swinney became known as a coach who kept his faith at the forefront of his leadership. In 2023, as the University of Colorado became a national story in college football and beyond, its new head coach, Deion Sanders, a former NFL Hall of Famer, consistently inserted his faith in team videos and press conferences throughout its highly publicized season. Tebow, as a college player from 2006 to 2009, and Swinney and Sanders, currently as coaches, are at public universities. Consequently, their actions can create a polarizing response. Some may hear these coaches professing their faith and commend them for living out their faith in a public setting. Others condemn them by arguing that their actions are inappropriate for a public setting. Sanders, who is one of the few Black Head coaches in College Football, was asked by renowned Gospel singer Kirk Franklin if he had experienced any racism at the University of Colorado. Coach Sanders replied that the foremost discrimination he had received was largely due to his outward expression of his Faith at the public university. He even stated that his profession of his faith had caused him to receive death threats. Sanders is not the only sports participant who has felt targeted due to their faith. In Ohio, a high school coaching staff was fired for forcing a Hebrew-Israeli student-athlete to eat pizza, which was against his Kosher diet.[7] Also, in Ohio, a high school runner was disqualified from her cross-country race for wearing a Hijab.[8] Although she did not bring suit against the athletic policy, she advocated for lawmakers to create a law that would prevent runners from being prevented from wearing Hijabs. The Ohio bill was unanimously passed.[9]
The Supreme Court prevents the state from discriminating against religion by striking down or permitting public schools and state educational policies that violate the Establishment Clause. For example, a New York court ruled that a New York City program, which permitted public school students to leave school to receive religious instruction, was deemed constitutional because students were not required to attend the religious instruction.[10] The Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin state law that prohibited the free exercise of Amish families by requiring Amish students to attend high school.[11] When a Missouri university prevented a Christian student group from meeting on campus, the Court ruled that the school’s actions violated not only the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment but also students’ free speech and free exercise rights.[12]
III. The Wall
Congress shall make no law… respecting an establishment of religion.
- The Lemon Test
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971),[13] Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted laws that permitted state funding to assist public school teachers with school supplies in Pennsylvania and provide salary subsidies in Rhode Island. In an 8-0 In a 7-2 decision against the state of Pennsylvania and an 8-1 decision against the state of Rhode Island, the Supreme Court determined that these were violations of the Establishment Clause. In this decision, the Supreme Court developed the Lemon Test, a three-pronged approach to determining when the Establishment Clause is violated. First, a law must have a secular purpose. Second, its primary effect should not promote or inhibit religion. Third, the law cannot exhibit an overreach of government entanglement with religion. If any of the three are present, the law in question shall be deemed a violation of the Establishment Clause. In Lemon, the court determined that an overreach of government entanglement with religion had occurred.
- State Actions, Public School Policy and Behavior
Two constructs primarily encapsulate the constitutionality of the relationship between the educational church and state. The first centers on state constitutions and their no-aid policies regarding funding of religion. In these “no aid” policy cases, the primary question of law involved the constitutionality of state funding of religion through grants, scholarships, tax credits, and other means. These were the critical legal questions in Everson (1947),[14] Lemon (1971),[15] Zelman (2002),[16] Locke (2004),[17] Trinity Lutheran (2017),[18] Espinoza (2020),[19] and Carson (2022).[20]The second construct, which is the focus of this paper, involves religious policies implemented within public schools and the religious activities performed by public school employees. Historically, in some instances, the Supreme Court has invoked the Establishment Clause in the context of public schools and state educational policies. For example, in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the Supreme Court ruled that an Illinois state educational policy permitting religious teachers to provide instruction to students within the school day was unconstitutional.[21] In Vitale (1962), the court ruled that the state could not lead prayer in public schools, even if it were not mandated by law. [22] Stating further, requiring students to recite the Lord’s Prayer or requiring students to read the Bible was unconstitutional because it violated the religious freedom of other students.[23] The Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law that permitted teachers to engage in prayer and religious activities in the classroom.[24] In Lee, it was determined that permitting a Rabbi as a commencement speaker to engage in prayer during the ceremony violated the Establishment Clause.[25]
IV. FAITH, FOOTBALL, & FELLOWSHIP
Exploring the evolution of Sports and the Law, there have been several faith-centered cases that have involved constitutional law. Twenty-five years ago, the court determined whether prayer before a football game was unconstitutional. The more recent cases involve prayer on the field after a football game, a college coach refusing to get vaccinated while citing religious exemption, and a Christian high school athletic student group having its membership revoked due to others deeming its policies to be discriminatory.
A. Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)[26]
The most recent Supreme Court decision regarding church-state separation in education was Kennedy v. Bremerton(2022). In the Kennedy case, a football coach in the state of Washington kneeled and prayed on the field after football games. The First Amendment, encompassing both the Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise Clause, protects this gesture. However, other players soon began to kneel to pray with the coach. According to some parents, this also pressured other players to engage in prayer. Generally, if a public school’s employees’ actions are deemed coercive to students’ participation in an activity, such as prayer, it violates the Establishment Clause. The case centered around the question, Were Coach Kennedy’s actions of prayer coercive as a public school employee? Or was he merely expressing his free speech and free exercise rights by praying on the field, and other students voluntarily joined him? In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the coach. The Court believed the coach was exercising his First Amendment rights, engaging in private speech; hence, his actions were deemed not coercive to the players on his team.
B. Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Inde School District (2023)[27]
In San Jose, California, many high schools in the district had student groups affiliated with the national sports organization Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA). A teacher at one of these high schools became aware of a leadership requirement set by the FCA, which stated that club leaders must affirm the belief that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. The teacher, along with other school personnel, believed that this policy was discriminatory and attempted to remove the student group from the event. When the FCA’s effort to be reinstated was unsuccessful, they filed a lawsuit on behalf of the student organization. The court considered whether the school district’s treatment of the FCA constituted a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Access Act. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the treatment of religion must be neutral. In balancing issues of gender-based discrimination against religious freedom, the courts must analyze whether religion was treated differently from other considerations. Other student-led and school-sponsored groups were permitted to discriminate based on ethnicity and gender. For example, there were programs specifically for Latino males and a women’s mentorship group. If these groups were allowed to focus on specific genders and ethnicities, it seemed that the school was unfairly targeting the Christian group based on its religious beliefs. This situation is evaluated under strict scrutiny, which requires that a law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Given that the school permitted other types of discrimination based on ethnicity and gender, the school district failed to meet this burden. Additionally, the school district violated the Equal Access Act, a federal law that prohibits federally funded public schools from discriminating against religious, non-school-sponsored student-led groups.[28]
C. Rolovich v. Washington State University (2025)[29]
In 2020, the college football season was on the verge of being canceled due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. To ensure the safety of college football teams during games, several measures were implemented. These precautions continued into 2021, including wearing masks, practicing social distancing when possible, and adhering to other safety protocols. During this period, the state of Washington mandated that all state employees be vaccinated. Nick Rolovich, the head football coach for Washington State University, refused to get vaccinated, citing religious exemptions. Consequently, he was fired in December 2021 for his refusal to comply with the vaccination requirement. Rolovich subsequently filed a lawsuit against Washington State University in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law. When a government entity, such as Washington State University, as a public institution, denies someone a religious exemption, that denial must be narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate government interest. This means that the burden on Washington State University must be significant for them to justify denying the exemption. In Rolovich’s case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington ruled in favor of Washington State University. The court determined that allowing an unvaccinated head coach would place a heavy burden on the university. He would be involved in daily meetings and travel with the team, making it impossible to prevent potential virus spread if he remained unvaccinated.
V. Conclusion
- Private Speech, Government Speech, and Struct Scrutiny
In Santa Fe, the court ruled that the Establishment Clause had been violated because the students’ prayer over the public address system before the game constituted government speech at a government-sponsored event, namely, the public school football game. In Kennedy, the court ruled that because his actions occurred after the game and were non-coercive, they were not deemed government speech as a public school employee, but rather private speech, covered by the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause. In FCA, the student group was singled out for their religious beliefs in marriage between a man and a woman. This action, which prevents free exercise, requires strict scrutiny review, which must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. However, removing a group that had been long-standing in the district solely on the grounds of its religious affiliation with the leader of the student group was not a compelling interest for the San Jose School District, according to the courts. In a juxtaposition with Rolovich, the coach’s refusal to vaccinate, citing a religious exemption, could not be granted an exemption on religious grounds because it would indeed cause an undue burden to the school. As such, the government proved its case that its actions were narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling government interest, which includes keeping all student-athletes and other team and campus stakeholders safe.
B. Moving Forward without Lemon
The First Amendment’s religion clauses have created an intriguing constitutional dichotomy. To mitigate civil rights litigation, public school officials must understand this dynamic. Athletic directors and coaches must also understand the legality of free exercise and the Establishment Clause to protect the civil rights of their student-athletes and prevent their schools from permitting or perpetuating negligence. The Lemon Test, which has historically served as the test for invoking the Establishment Clause, is all but obsolete.[30] The Kennedy case, though disputed by the facts of what actually transpired on the field, is part of a new force moving forward in Free Exercise. Notwithstanding, public school athletic directors and coaches at high school and college institutions must be aware of the history and changes that have occurred over the past decade. They must also be prepared to mitigate the risk of litigation through education, sound athletic policies, and governance. Awareness is key. Matha Minow states, “In our country, conflicts come to law, and law in turn shapes discussions about our differences and how to navigate change.”[31]
Most recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, in which a private Catholic school sought to participate in the state’s public charter system. The Supreme Court ruled in a 4-4 split, which meant the state of Oklahoma’s decision, regarding this as a violation of church and state, remained in effect. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. This type of case is likely to return to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later, and when it does, one can expect the decision to be a 5-4 split. If and when this happens, we will see a new Establishment Clause, where coercion is the primary substance of invoking the Establishment Clause, rather than the use of public funding to support religious schools. The 75 history of educational church and state has risen to the forefront of public education. The dichotomy between church and state is unlikely to change, but awareness surrounding it can be significantly improved.
[1] See Kennedy v. Bremerton
[2] U.S. Const. amend. I.
[3] See Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky, The Religion Clauses: The Case for separating church and state (2020).
[4] See Joshua M. Dunn and Martin R. West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary’s Role in American Education (2009).
[5] See Kennedy v. Bremerton
[6] See Sante Fe v. Independent School District
[7] Ohio Athlete Hebrew Israeli
[8] Ohio Athlete Hijab runner disqualified
[9] Senate Bill 181 https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/134/sb181
[10] See Zorach v. Clauson (1952).
[11] See Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).
[12] See Widmar v. Vincent (1981).
[13] See Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
[14] See Everson v. Board of Education of Township of Ewing (1947). (Supreme Court ruled the state law was constitutional because the funds were provided to the parents, not the religious schools).
[15] See Supra Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
[16] See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). (The Supreme Court ruled that this did not violate the Establishment Clause because the money went to the families, not the religious schools.).
[17] See Locke v. Davey (2004). (The Supreme Court ruled for the state of Washington, reasoning that the state could not be required to fund religious education due to its state constitution.).
[18] See Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017). (The Supreme Court ruled a religious organization could not be discriminated against for the sole reason that it is religious.).
[19] See Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020). (The Supreme Court ruled that the free exercise clause also prevented individuals from being discriminated against due to exercising their faith, which consisted of choosing a Christian school for their children.).
[20] See Carson v. Makin (2022). (The Court ruled (6-3) that Maine’s law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.).
[21] See McCollum v. Board of Education (1948).
[22] See Engel v. Vitale (1962).
[23] See Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).
[24] See Alabama case
[25] See Lee v. Weisman (1992).
[26] See Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022).
[27] See FCA v. San Jose Indie School District (2023)
[28] https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/5345 – Equal Access Act (1984) – Prohibits federally-funded public secondary schools which allow non-school-sponsored groups of students to meet from discriminating against any meeting of students on the basis of religious content if: (1) the meeting is voluntary and student initiated; (2) there is no government sponsorship; and (3) no unlawful activity is permitted.
[29] Rolovich v. Wash. State Univ., No. 2:22-CV-0319-TOR, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4688 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2025)
[30] Stephen Sachs, Harvard Community Seminar – Constitution Day, 2023
[31] Minow, Martha, Walls or Bridges: Law’s Role in Conflicts Over Religion and Equal Treatment (February 17, 2023). Brigham Young University Law Review, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 23-28, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4362246