⚖️ The Sideline Sermon That Reshaped the Boundaries of Free Expression

How a High School Football Coach’s Prayer Is Now Changing the Way We Think About Intellectual Property, Expression, and the Public Workplace

By TheOneLawFirm.com | Special Feature | July 2025

I. The 50-Yard Line Moment Heard Around the Law

In 2015, a high school football coach knelt on a field in Washington state, bowed his head, and prayed.

A few yards away, players mingled, parents trickled out of the stands, and dusk settled over Bremerton High School. What seemed like a quiet act of faith was anything but. That coach, Joseph Kennedy, had just kicked off one of the most consequential legal battles in the modern First Amendment era—and, unexpectedly, a case with rising implications for intellectual property (IP) law.

“This wasn’t a constitutional law case about employment. It became a referendum on the nature of ownership—of speech, of expression, and of meaning in public spaces.”
— Legal scholar, Columbia Law Review panel, 2023

II. Case Brief: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by Justice Gorsuch, held that Kennedy’s actions were not coercive, not institutionally endorsed, and thus constitutionally protected. Gone was the much-maligned Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations. In its place: an originalist tilt favoring religious expression and individual liberty, even in public employment.

III. But Wait—This Isn’t Just a Religion Case

The headlines called it a religious freedom case. And sure, that’s the constitutional headline. But lawyers paying closer attention—especially those in intellectual property (IP) law—noticed something deeper.

The central constitutional question was whether Kennedy’s prayer was private speech or governmental expression. The Court ruled: it was his speech.

That one call, that seemingly narrow designation, cracks open a new frontier in IP litigation.

🧠 THE CORE QUESTION FOR IP LAW

If Kennedy’s religious expression during work hours wasn’t “government speech,” what other expressive content created by public employees could be considered private property?

IV. Work-for-Hire Meets the First Amendment

Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, “works made for hire” belong to the employer if created within the scope of employment. But Kennedy wasn’t “hired to pray.” His act was expressive, personal, and according to the Court, protected.

⚖️ Analogy to Creative Work

This is a seismic shift. Lawyers can now challenge assumptions about IP ownership in government and public-sector contexts with a robust First Amendment backing.

V. Moral Rights and the Integrity of Expression

Another dimension? Moral rights. These are the rights of creators to control how their works are presented, attributed, or destroyed. While the U.S. only lightly recognizes these under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), the Kennedy decision signals growing judicial sympathy for the individual’s control over expression, especially in complex, semi-public arenas.

In Kennedy, the state tried to suppress an expressive act because of its potential association with institutional messaging. The Court said no. That logic extends—at least in spirit—to how we view suppression or co-optation of public employees’ creations.

“To refuse speech because the government fears how it may be perceived is not neutrality. It is censorship.”
— Justice Gorsuch, Kennedy v. Bremerton

This could have rippling effects across artistic, academic, and digital content disputes involving public figures or workers.

VI. Brand Protection vs. Expressive Rights

Public institutions—from city councils to universities—have a vested interest in protecting their “brand.” When an employee’s expression conflicts with that brand, institutions often suppress, discipline, or appropriate the content.

Enter Kennedy. The Court was unambiguous: an individual’s expressive rights do not vanish simply because they wear a uniform or step on public property.

IP Lawyer Strategy Table

VII. Data Snapshot: First Amendment Meets IP Law

From 2022–2024:

• 14 new cases have cited Kennedy v. Bremerton in the context of public employment and expressive rights.
• At least 7 involved disputes over ownership of intellectual or creative content.
• State courts in California and New York have referenced Kennedy in upholding employee expression claims.

Figure: Legal Citations Trendline (2022–2024)

2022: 3 citations
2023: 9 citations
2024: 14 citations

The trend is clear: Kennedy is being picked up as an expressive rights landmark, with implications well beyond religion.

VIII. Limitations and Critiques

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned of slippery slopes: that authority figures could coerce or influence student conduct under the guise of personal expression. While that concern remains relevant in education, the ruling’s clarity on separating public employment from expressive autonomy is now a foundation for broader protections.

Yet this also complicates IP doctrine. If an employee’s creation is “expressive” and “personal,” where’s the line between private speech and work product? Kennedy doesn’t answer that definitively—but it’s the new framework for litigating it.

IX. The Bottom Line for IP Lawyers

If you represent:

• Public employees
• Artists in government service
• Academics asserting ownership of their work
• Tech workers with personal side projects

…then Kennedy v. Bremerton is now required reading.

It’s no longer just about prayer. It’s about authorship. Attribution. Ownership. Expression. And the limits of institutional control.

📚 Endnotes

1. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022). Supreme Court Opinion
2. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
3. 17 U.S.C. § 101 – “Work Made for Hire” Doctrine. Read more
4. Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A. Details here
5. Columbia Law Review Panel, “First Amendment Drift: Kennedy’s Legal Wake,” March 2023.
6. National Center for Public Sector IP Rights, Litigation Tracking Report, 2022–2024.