Cambridge Christian School argues loudspeaker prayer is protected private speech, not state endorsement of religion
On June 3, 2025, Cambridge Christian School filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings that barred its students from praying over the loudspeaker at a state football championship in 2015. The Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) denied the school’s request, asserting that allowing a prayer could be interpreted as government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The school argues the denial constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against religious speech. Their petition frames the case as a First Amendment issue, contending that the government-speech doctrine has been improperly expanded to silence private religious expression in a public setting that otherwise permits secular speech.
The case stems from a 2015 championship game between Cambridge Christian and University Christian, both private religious schools. FHSAA blocked their request to broadcast a brief pregame prayer over the stadium loudspeaker, despite allowing similar practices in prior years, including a nearly identical prayer at the same event in 2012. According to the petition, the only change was FHSAA’s interpretation of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, a 2000 decision barring school-sponsored prayer at public school games.
In its argument, the school highlights that FHSAA regularly permits secular speech over the loudspeaker—including music, school announcements, and advertisements—and thus cannot selectively prohibit religious speech. The petition relies heavily on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), where the Supreme Court upheld a coach’s right to pray publicly after football games, ruling it as protected private expression.
FHSAA shifted its justification during litigation. Initially citing the Establishment Clause, it later argued the prayer would constitute government speech, making it exempt from First Amendment protections. The Eleventh Circuit accepted this reasoning in a 2024 decision, holding that all speech over the loudspeaker at the state-run event was government speech—even when performed by private schools.
The petition urges the Court to clarify whether private parties may use public platforms for religious expression without their speech being treated as state endorsement. It also asks the Court to reconsider the reach of Santa Fe, arguing that its logic is inconsistent with more recent decisions like Matal v. Tam, Shurtleff v. Boston, and Kennedy.
If the Court accepts the case, it will likely determine whether student-initiated religious speech using public infrastructure—like loudspeakers—is protected under the First Amendment when the platform is otherwise open to secular speech.
The Court’s decision on whether to hear the case is expected in fall 2025. If granted, oral arguments could follow in spring 2026, with a ruling by June 2026.
Legal Commentary: Why the Supreme Court Should Hear the Cambridge Christian Prayer Case—and Clarify Rules for Religious Use of Public Facilities
The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Cambridge Christian School v. FHSAA because the case presents a clear question about whether religious speech loses First Amendment protection when it is broadcast through a public platform. The stakes are broader than one football game—they affect how courts interpret religious use of public property nationwide.
Across the country, religious denominations routinely use public school campuses after hours or on weekends. Churches rent auditoriums for worship services, host youth rallies in school gyms, and offer evangelistic events in cafeterias. These uses are permitted under neutral-access policies that allow any group—religious or not—to lease facilities when school is not in session. The legal principle behind these policies is settled: once a government opens a forum for private use, it cannot exclude religious content solely because it is religious.
That same principle should apply here. The Florida High School Athletic Association permitted private schools to use the stadium loudspeaker for unscripted secular messages, halftime music (including religious pieces), and paid commercial ads. Yet when Cambridge Christian School asked to offer a prayer—consistent with its tradition and practice—the FHSAA denied it on the basis that the prayer would appear as government-endorsed speech. That’s a flawed and overbroad application of the government-speech doctrine.
The Court has consistently ruled against such exclusions. In Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), it held that a Christian club could meet after school on public elementary school property, rejecting arguments that it would violate the Establishment Clause. In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993), the Court said a church could use school facilities to show religious films if the school allowed other groups similar access.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision conflicts with these precedents. If permitted to stand, it creates a rule where public platforms—like loudspeakers—can be freely used for secular content, but religious speech is singled out and banned. That effectively revives the discredited Lemon test by treating all visible religious expression as a presumed violation, even when it comes from private actors.
The Supreme Court should take this case to clarify that religious speech delivered in a neutral-access setting—whether in a classroom, on a football field, or through a microphone—retains full First Amendment protection. A ruling would help prevent viewpoint-based censorship and reaffirm the neutrality principle that governs religious use of public spaces.