Amicus Curiae Brief — Cambridge Christian School, Inc., Petitioner v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.

No. 24-1261

In The

Supreme Court of tijc

States

Cambridge Christian School, Inc.,

Petitioner,

V.

Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CHRISTIAN

FOOTBALL COACHES & PLAYERS IN

SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Samuel J. Salario, Jr.

Counsel of Record

Lawson Huck Gonzalez

1700 South MacDill Ave.

Suite 240

Tampa, FL 33629

(813) 765-5113

Samuel®

lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

Alan Lawson

Jason B. Gonzalez

Lawson Huck Gonzalez

215 S. Monroe Street

Suite 320

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Anthony J. Sirven

Brian M. Trujillo

Lawson Huck Gonzalez

121 Alhambra Plaza

Floor No. 10

Miami, FL 33134

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

July 10, 2025

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .

1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .

4

ARGUMENT .

6

I.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision omitted

the general history of prayer in foothall,

undermining the holistic review necessary

for the determination of private or government

speech .

6

a.

Faith and prayer have travelled with

American foothall since its inception .

7

h.

Faith compels action, whether on the

sidewalk or on the field; the First

Amendment protects that action .

12

Testimony of Coach Tommy Bowden .

13

Testimony of Chad Hennings .

15

Testimony of Tim Tehow .

16

IL Should the Eleventh Circuit’s decision

stand, government actors will he licensed

to discriminate against religious expression

under the pretense of government speech .

18

CONCLUSION .

23

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.

588 U.S. 29 (2019) .

18

Cambridge Christian Sch., Inc. v.

Florida High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc.,

115 F.4th 1266 (11th Cir. 2024) .

20

City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas,

143 S. Ct. 764 (2023) .

18

Employment Div., Dept, of Hum. Res. of Ore v.

Smith,

494 U.S. 872 (1990) .

13

Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing,

330 U.S. 1 (1947) .

13

Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.,

597 U.S. 507 (2022) .

12, 13, 18, 20

Lynch v. Donnelly,

465 U.S. 668 (1984) .

18

McCreary Cnty., Ky. v.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,

545 U.S. 844 (2005) .

12

Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe,

530 U.S. 290 (2000) .

18

Shurtleffy. City of Boston, Massachusetts,

596 U.S. 243 (2022) .

6, 7, 19, 22

Van Orden v. Perry,

545 U.S. 677 (2005) .

19

Walker y. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,

576 U.S. 200 (2015) .

7

iii

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const, amend. I.

4, 6, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22

Statutes, Rules and Other Authorities

Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 .

1

Florida High School Athletic Association,

Frequently Asked Questions,

hit.ly/SGukmQe (last visited July 6, 2025) ....20, 21

Jorge Gomez, Faith on the Field:

The Story Behind NFL Prayer Circles

(Sept. 1, 2023), hit.ly/44uKiDk .

9, 10

Collin Hansen, Football’s Pious Pioneer,

Christianity Today (Aug. 8, 2008),

hit.ly/44cslKW .

8

Erin A. McCarthy, Making Men:

The Life and Career of Amos Alonzo Stagg,

1862-1933 (May 1994) (Ph.D. dissertation,

Loyola University Chicago), hit.ly/3IulQug .

8

Nebraska Huskers, Chasing 3: In Season with

Nebraska Football | Episode 1 — UTEP

(Sept. 4, 2024), bit.ly/3IfpZ51 .

11

Thomas Neumann, How 49ers, Giants started

postgame prayer tradition 25 years ago

(Dec. 3, 2015), bit.ly/3G17wnt .

10, 11

Pro Football Hall of Fame, Faith & Football

(Apr. 13, 2020) bit.ly/44xBI6G .

9

Paul Putz, Super Bowl Fans Don’t Want Faith

Sidelined, CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Feb. 7, 2025),

bit.ly/46sqSBA.

9

iv

Sports Spectrum, Philadelphia Eagles players come

together to pray after winning the Super Bowl,

YouTube (Feb. 5, 2018), bit.ly/4kpXa3s .

11

Zak Wellerman, Kansas City Chiefs CEO speaks

of his faith, Patrick Mahomes at CityFest

luncheon, TYLER MORNING TELEGRAPH

(Oct. 3, 2019), bit.ly/41eJSbj .

9

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE^

Coach Tommy Bowden

In the Bowden household, foothall and faith were

two sides of the same coin. As part of a legendary

coaching dynasty, Tommy Bowden grew up watching

his father weave Christian principles into foothall, a

legacy he’s carried into his own career. Coach Bowden

insists that barring coaches from expressing their

beliefs in public schools stifles the very guidance

young athletes need. In supporting the petitioner.

Coach Bowden lends his voice to protect religious

expression in public school athletics, a stance rooted

in his lifelong commitment to faith- driven

mentorship.

Tim Tebow

Tim Tebow, a Jacksonville native and former

University of Florida quarterback, is known as much

for his leadership and character as for his athletic

achievements. A member of the College Football Hall

of Fame, he won the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and led

his team to two BCS National Championships,

becoming one of the most recognizable college athletes

of his era. His football career was followed by a stint

in the NFL and later in Minor League Baseball. For

Tebow, prayer offers a moment to shift the spotlight—

redirecting attention on God when everything else is

focused on the athlete. Tebow now serves as the

founder and chairman of the Tim Tebow Foundation,

1 No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in

part, and no entity or person, aside from amici and their counsel,

made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or

submission of this brief. Counsel of record for all parties have

received the timely notice required under Rule 37.2.

2

which brings Faith, Hope and Love to those needing a

brighter day in their darkest hour of need.

In supporting the petitioner, Tebow affirms the

importance of protecting the right of coaches and

players to express sincerely held beliefs in respectful

and appropriate ways. His example reflects how faith,

when lived with authenticity and conviction, can

inspire communities and strengthen the culture of

sports at every level.

Chad Hennings

For Chad Hennings, faith wasn’t just a personal

anchor—it was a lifeline through chaos. A three-time

Super Bowl champion with the Dallas Cowboys and a

decorated Air Force pilot who flew 45 missions in the

Persian Gulf, he leaned on his Christian beliefs amid

roaring jets and roaring crowds alike. He believes that

this freedom to live out his faith fueled his resilience,

a lesson he wants preserved for student-athletes.

Hennings stands with the petitioner to ensure coaches

and players in public schools can draw on that same

strength sourced from faith alone and champions the

right to religious expression in athletics.

Dat Nguyen

Dat Nguyen’s story begins far from the gridiron, in

a refugee camp where faith planted seeds of hope. The

first Vietnamese-American NFL player, he carried

that hope through Texas A&M—where he shattered

records and earned All-American honors—to a seven¬

year career with the Dallas Cowboys. On the field, he

saw faith rally teammates, turning individuals into a

unit. Nguyen contends that public school athletics

should nurture this unity, not restrict it.

3

Cory Procter

A “faith-driven man,” forged across 54 NFL games,

Cory Procter, was an offensive guard for the Dallas

Cowhoys and Miami Dolphins. Procter found that

shared beliefs turned grueling practices into moments

of connection during his college days at the University

of Montana and beyond. Now a vocal advocate, Procter

sees religious expression as a cornerstone of athletic

culture—one public schools must protect. He aligns

with this brief to uphold that right for coaches and

student-athletes alike. In supporting the petitioner,

Procter reinforces the need for religious freedom in

sports, echoing his deep-seated views on its role in

team unity.

Alan Cox

A retired coach, Florida high school principal, and

deputy school superintendent, Alan Cox is the son of

legendary Florida high school football coach Gene

Cox. During his lifetime. Gene Cox was inducted into

six halls of fame, including the Florida Sports Hall of

Fame and the Florida High School Athletic

Association Hall of Fame. Alan Cox played and

coached football under his father. Gene, and reports

that for his father pre- and post-game prayer was

integral to the Florida football programs he led and

one of the many ways that Coach Cox lived out his

faith. The other coaches, players, parents and

observers understood that this practice was an

outgrowth and reflection of his father’s personal faith,

and not that of the schools where he coached. Alan

also reports that this was historically a common

practice at Florida interscholastic football games

played among Florida High School Athletic

Association members.

4

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Tasked with resolving whether it was constitutional

for FHSAA to deny Cambridge Christian School the

use of a loudspeaker for public, pre-game prayer at

their championship football game, the Eleventh

Circuit had one question to decide: whether

Cambridge Christian’s use of the loudspeaker was

properly categorized as Cambridge Christian’s own

private speech—fully protected by the First

Amendment—or FHSAA’s government speech, to

which Cambridge Christian has no First Amendment

claim. Under this Court’s precedents, that required

the Eleventh Circuit to conduct a holistic, non¬

mechanical review of the message that considered,

among other things, the history surrounding the

message being conveyed.

That historical inquiry required the Eleventh

Circuit to review the general history surrounding the

nature of the message (i.e., the tradition of public

displays of faith in American football) and a specific

review of the history as to the circumstances

immediately before the court (i.e., FHSAA’s practice

of sometimes allowing prayer at its games, including

championship games). Unfortunately, it failed to do

either. That methodological error produced a decision

divorced from the general historical context, stilted by

an overly narrow view of the specific history, and

destined to conclude (wrongly) that government

speech was at issue.

This Court should grant Cambridge Christian’s

petition for two reasons. First, omitting the general

review of history here doesn’t just present harmless

5

deviation from this Court’s guidance. It’s prejudicial.

The opinion helow proceeded unaided hy vital context:

that faith in general and outward, public expressions

of faith in particular have always been a part of

American football. From the start, football’s legendary

founders infused Christian virtue into the game. And

far from withering, those values and the resulting

prayer-tradition remain central today. For the young

men at Cambridge Christian denied their long¬

standing tradition of pre-game prayer, the FHSAA’s

decision can only be viewed as religious intolerance

and the stifling of their private speech. The court

missed that their public display of faith was the

inevitable fruit of a long tradition of the cause in

which those young athletes were engaged: American

football.

Second, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision authorizes

arbitrary viewpoint discrimination by government

actors hostile (or not) to the speaker or the speech.

Thrown into in the government- speech bucket,

virtually identical expression is destined to be

forbidden one day, when the government official in

charge dislikes the messenger or their message, and

permitted the next, when a different government

official has different predispositions. The Eleventh

Circuit licensed this Kafkaesque outcome by

overlooking the specific history of public prayer at

FHSAA games. At the very same championship game

just three years before, FHSAA allowed another

Christian school to pray over the loudspeaker. And at

each playoff game until this championship game,

Cambridge Christian prayed publicly. The court gave

these facts too little attention.

The result is a court- sanctioned system of viewpoint

discrimination, in which free expression is

6

conditioned on the whims of officials on the ground.

The First Amendment, fortunately, forbids this

outcome.

ARGUMENT

I.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision omitted

the general history of prayer in foothall,

undermining

the

holistic

review

necessary for the determination of

private or government speech.

“When the government encourages diverse

expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the

First Amendment prevents it from discriminating

against speakers based on their viewpoint. But when

the government speaks for itself, the First

Amendment does not demand airtime for all views.”

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Massachusetts, 596 U.S.

243, 247-48 (2022) (cleaned up). Put differently,

where the government invites the public to use its

resources for expression, the First Amendment will

protect that speech as private speech of the citizen

actor. But where the government is using its resources

to broadcast its own messages, the First Amendment

serves as no impediment to the government’s

regulation over that message.

So, here, the question becomes: Is Cambridge

Christian’s prayer over the loudspeaker at the

FHSAA championship game Cambridge Christian’s

private speech or FHSAA’s government speech? The

history of faith and prayer in American football

compelled a single response: Cambridge Christian’s

prayer—as private speech—was its own, and not the

government’s to regulate.

7

Acknowledging that the “boundary between

government speech and private expression can blur

when, as here, a government invites the people to

participate in a program,” id. at 252, this Court

endorsed “a holistic inquiry designed to determine

whether the government intends to speak for itself or

to regulate private expression,” ibid. The Court

further cautioned that (unlike the Eleventh Circuit’s

work below) “[its] review is not mechanical; it is

driven by a case’s context rather than the rote

application of rigid factors.” Ibid. Relevant evidence

for this holistic review “includ[es],” non-exhaustively,

“the history of the expression at issue; the public’s

likely perception as to who (the government or a

private person) is speaking; and the extent to which

the government has actively shaped or controlled the

expression.” Ibid, (citing Walker y. Texas Div., Sons of

Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 209 (2015)).

It is what a proper review of the history reveals that

is the focus of amici’s brief today.

a. Faith and prayer have travelled with

American foothall since its inception.

In Shurtleff, this Court resolved whether Boston’s

practice of offering a flagpole outside of its City Hall

was properly understood as a forum for private speech

or the conveyance of government speech alone. The

Court began with the relevant, general history

coloring the context in which the expression at issue

must be considered. There, it was “the history of flag

flying, particularly at the seat of government.”

Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 253. Here, it should have been

the history of public displays of faith, including

prayer, in football. And those displays are as old as

football itself.

8

We begin at the infancy of football. “[T]he tackling

dummy, numbered jerseys, huddles, athletic letters,

and men in motion” were all invented by Yale Divinity

student—and revered football pioneering titan—

Amos Alonzo Stagg. Collin Hansen, Football’s Pious

Pioneer, CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Aug. 8, 2008),

bit.ly/44cslKW.

For Stagg, it was not just that faith and football

were inseparable, his pioneering of the game in the

late 19th century was the fruit and function of his

faith. To Stagg, “coaching was a ‘Christian calling,’

and through it he taught the values of temperance,

self-control, fair play, and the Golden Rule—lessons

traditionally identified with conventional religion.”

Erin A. McCarthy, Making Men: The Life and Career

of Amos Alonzo Stagg, 1862-1933 (May 1994) (Ph.D

dissertation,

Loyola

University

Chicago),

bit.ly/SIulQug at 13. “As a student at Yale in the

188O’s, Stagg discovered a strong connection between

his athletic gifts and his devotion to God. . . .

Coaching, to Stagg, was simply an extension of his

work to convert others to a better life.” Ibid, (emphasis

added).

But it wasn’t just the modern form of the game that

Stagg gave to all: “Stagg instilled in football Christian

values that remain apparent today.” Hansen,

Football’s Pious Pioneer at 1. Far from withering

away, the seeds planted by that “soft-spoken,” ibid.,

divinity student have transformed American life.

Through the years, the great American stage that is

football has come to rest on the branches grown from

those seeds of faith—now more than ever before.

Take what the fans say. In February 2025, Sports

Spectrum reported that 56% of “regular sports viewers

support [ed] players using their platform to promote

9

their [faith and spirituality].” Commenting on the

survey, Christianity Today reported that “[rjather

than replacing organized religion in American life,

perhaps sports has become a cultural space that is

more open to religion—a means through which

traditional identities can be affirmed and expressed.

And perhaps this is true not just of athletes and

coaches [ ], but also of the fans who cheer them on.”

Paul Putz, Super Bowl Fans Don’t Want Faith

Sidelined, CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Feb. 7, 2025),

bit.ly/46sqSBA (emphasis in original).

The owners of American football organizations come

out the same way. Just weeks before the Kansas City

Chiefs would make their first Super Bowl appearance

in over fifty years, CEO Clark Hunt proudly

proclaimed ‘“[i]n the National Football League, Christ

is really glorified. My identity is my faith in Christ.’”

Zak Wellerman, Kansas City Chiefs CEO speaks of his

faith, Patrick Mahomes at CityFest luncheon, Tyler

Morning Telegraph (Oct. 3, 2019), bit.ly/41eJSbj.

The Chiefs won that year.

On Easter Sunday of that same year (2020), the Pro

Football Hall of Fame broadcasted ten homilies by

NFL superstars publicly sharing their faith and

republished Pastor Rich McDaniel’s 2013 Huffington

Post Blog on the parallels between football and the

Bible. See Pro Football Hall of Fame, Faith & Football

(Apr. 13, 2020) bit.ly/44xBI6G.

Of prayer, “[a]nyone who watches football is bound

to come across players, coaches or fans putting their

faith on display.” Jorge Gomez, Faith on the Field: The

Story Behind NFL Prayer Circles (Sept. 1, 2023),

bit.ly/44uKiDk. But it’s not just the athlete’s taking a

knee or pointing upwards to Heaven, American

10

football has the “prayer circle.” See ibid, (collecting

high school, college, and NFL photos of pre- and post¬

game prayer circles). In the NFL, “prayer circles have

been around for at least 33 seasons.” Ibid. And they

trace their origin to a 1990 matchup between the San

Francisco 49ers and the New York Giants. See

generally Thomas Neumann, How 49ers, Giants

started postgame prayer tradition 25 years ago (Dec.

3, 2015), bit.ly/3G17wnt. The game was a contentious

matchup built up over prior collisions and

disrespectful remarks between the two teams. And it

“nearly bubbled over into a full-scale brawl mid-field.”

Ibid. Ironically, each teams’ chaplain had scheduled

the prayer ahead of the matchup precisely to

demonstrate the reconciliation power of faith between

two teams. Though the acrimony increased, the teams

still wanted to pray. See ibid. (‘“We made the decision,

no matter who wins or loses, at the end of the game

we’ll meet and just take a knee at the 50-yard line and

pray together. The purpose is to honor God and give

thanks for the opportunity to play the game.’” (quoting

49ers chaplain Pat Richie)).

The practice, however, was not without resistance.

“Just as the act of postgame prayer was picking up

steam, it became caught in the crossfire of a larger

debate.” Ibid. The NFL cited violations of their policy

against “fraternization between teams,” to try and

curtail the practice.

But it didn’t work. The players wanted prayer. And

they continued to do so even on pain of threatened

fines, although no fines came. The practice continued

and, “before long, following the leads of the 49ers,

Giants and Bills, players from across the league took

up the practice of praying in unison after games. The

custom mushroomed over the years to the point where

11

it now is an established routine in the NFL, college

football and other sports.” Ibid; see also Sports

Spectrum, Philadelphia Eagles players come together

to pray after winning the Super Bowl, YouTube (Feb.

5, 2018), bit.ly/4kpXa3s.

The University of Nebraska^ football team famously

has the “Husker Prayer.” It calls to mind the

Christian virtues Stagg instilled in the game nearly

140 years ago:

Dear Lord, the battles we go through life.

We ask for a chance that’s fair

A chance to equal our stride,

A chance to do or dare

If we should win, let it be by the code.

Faith and Honor held high

If we should lose, we’ll stand by the road.

And cheer as the winners go by

Day by Day, we get better and better!

Til’ we can’t be beat . . .

Won’t be beat!

Nebraska Huskers, Chasing 3: In Season with

Nebraska Football | Episode 1 - UTEP (Sept. 4, 2024),

bit.ly/3IfpZ51.

To review Cambridge Christian’s request for prayer

apart from this rich history is to have killed the

analysis before it started. It was to treat as separate

two things that have often travelled together. It

ignores what the coaches, players, and fans expect

about a message and who its conveyors are. This

ahistorical review also insists on a view of religion

2 The University of Nebraska is Nebraska’s only public

university system.

12

that has never been true: that we are an areligious

Country. That “[rjeligion is to be strictly excluded

from the public forum ... is not, and never was, the

model adopted by America.” McCreary Cnty., Ky. v.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 886

(2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also ibid, (collecting

public displays of faith in government: “George

Washington added to the form Presidential oath

prescribed [in the Constitution] the concluding words

‘so help me God’”; “[t]he Supreme Court under John

Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, ‘God

save the United States and this Honorable Court’”;

“[t]he First Congress instituted the practice of

beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer”; “[t]he

same week that Congress submitted the

Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for

ratification by the States, it enacted legislation

providing for paid chaplains in the House and

Senate”).

b. Faith compels action, whether on the

sidewalk or on the field; the First

Amendment protects that action.

All these faith accounts build up to one point: To

hold these beliefs is to live them out, even while

playing football. These beliefs occupy every part of a

man or woman’s primary concern because they must.

The harm in omitting this history is best appreciated

upon the realization that “[t]he [Free Exercise]

3 This case implicates both Free Exercise and Establishment

Clause concerns. See Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S.

507, 523 (2022) (calling out the error in the Ninth Circuit’s

reasoning that Establishment Clause concerns “‘trump [ed]’ Mr.

Kennedy’s rights to religious exercise and free speech” because

while “it is true that this Court and others often refer to the

‘Establishment Clause,’ the ‘Free Exercise Clause,’ and the ‘Free

13

Clause protects not only the right to harhor religious

beliefs inwardly and secretly. It does perhaps its most

important work by protecting the ability of those who

hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their

faiths in daily life through ‘the performance of (or

abstention from) physical acts.’” Kennedy, 597 U.S. at

524 (quoting Employment Div., Dept, of Hum. Res. of

Ore V. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990) (emphasis

added)).

For the young men of Cambridge Christian facing

their challengers on the eve of their fierce but

cherished contest, prayer for safety, grace, and God’s

provision (just as all the other times before) was far

from simple prudence. It was the natural fruit of their

faith and the natural tradition of the cause in which

they were now engaged: American football. And it was

inescapable.

The amici offer three compelling testimonies

demonstrating the insuppressible call to action faith

allows, even in football.

Testimony of Coach Tommy Bowden

Coach Tommy Bowden spent his life in American

football, leading programs at Clemson, Tulane,

Auburn, and other institutions. But his most

important role was as a mentor, a counselor and, for

many young men, a spiritual father. And he could not

have fulfilled that role without his Christian faith.

Speech Clause’ as separate units,” the “three Clauses appear in

the same sentence of the same Amendment .... A natural

reading of that sentence would seem to suggest the Clauses have

‘complementary’ purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is

always sure to prevail over the others.” (quoting Everson v.

Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 13, 15 (1947)).

14

Bowden grew up in the South, where foothall and

faith were woven into the fabric of community life. At

high school games, it was common—expected, even—

for a prayer to be offered before kickoff. Not to

proselytize, but to ask for safety, sportsmanship, and

gratitude. It was part of the rhythm of the game, like

the national anthem or the coin toss.

As a head coach, Bowden brought that tradition

with him. He encouraged his players to attend church.

He invited them to join the Fellowship of Christian

Athletes. He organized “Spiritual Two-a-Days,” where

each player was paired with a local Christian mentor.

These were voluntary programs—but 83 out of 85

scholarship players joined. They were hungry for

guidance, for meaning, for something deeper than

wins and losses.

Bowden modeled prayer for this teams. He prayed

for both teams—for health, for character, for the

chance to play with honor (before and after every

game). He brought in speakers like Reggie White (i.e.,

ordained minister and defensive hall of famer better

known as the “Minister of Defense”) to talk about faith

and leadership. He wrote to every parent before the

season, explaining that he was a Christian coach and

that he would encourage—not require—their sons to

explore faith.

To tell a Christian team that they cannot pray

before a championship game is, in Bowden’s view, to

deny them an ability to exercise their faith by

proclaiming glory to God instead of their own

achievements. It is to deny the reality that for many,

faith is not a private hobby—it is the source of values,

leadership, and love for the people they serve.

15

Bowden believes that Cambridge Christian should

not have to choose between competing for a

championship and living out its faith. And he’s right.

The Constitution does not require that choice. It

protects the right of every American to speak and live

according to conscience. That’s a freedom Coach

Bowden enjoyed through his career. And it’s a freedom

he hopes this Court will support for the next

generation.

Testimony of Chad Hennings

Chad Hennings has worn many uniforms in his

life—those of a college athlete, an Air Force pilot, a

professional football player, and now a business

partner, author, and speaker. But the identity that

has grounded him through all of them is his Christian

faith.

From his earliest days playing football in Iowa,

prayer was a natural part of the game. Coaches

prayed with their teams before taking the field—not

to win, but for protection, for character, and for the

strength to honor the game and each other. That

tradition continued at the Air Force Academy, where

Hennings learned that leadership without moral

grounding is fragile. It followed him into the NFL,

where he played for the Dallas Cowboys and won

three Super Bowls. In every locker room, prayer was

a source of unity and purpose.

But for Hennings, faith is not to be confined to

private moments.

He has opened government sessions in Texas with

prayer. He has spoken at the Pentagon, the Merchant

Marine Academy, and the Air Force Academy about

16

leadership, identity, and the moral compass that faith

provides. These public displays are not to impose his

beliefs, but to live them out authentically as the

natural consequence of the Christian faith.

To separate faith from football, in Hennings’s view,

is to misunderstand both. As he puts it, football is a

crucible for character. It demands sacrifice, discipline,

and courage. And for many, those virtues are

inseparable from the pursuit of Christ.

When a coach or player takes a knee in prayer

publicly—whether in victory, defeat, or concern for an

injured teammate—it is not a political act, but a

sincere and individual expression of faith that is

extremely personal to the adherent. Some view it as a

necessary expression given their convictions—forged

in the atmosphere historically associated with

American football.

Hennings believes that requiring a football team to

hide their faith under the pretense of Constitutional

concerns turns the First Amendment on its head. The

freedom to speak, to pray, and to live according to

one’s conscience is not a threat to pluralism—it is its

foundation. He supports Cambridge Christian

because he knows that faith, when expressed with

humility and sincerity, enriches communities,

institutions, and young people.

Testimony of Tim Tebow

Though Tim Tebow is no longer playing football

professionally, he tries to keep his faith central to

everything he does. His years on the field were never

just about the game—they were opportunities to live

out and share his beliefs in ways that made a lasting

impact.

17

Tebow’s Christian faith doesn’t simply influence his

life; it defines it. He has consistently and respectfully

expressed his beliefs through actions like prayer on

the field and inscribing Bible verses such as “John

3:16” on his eye black during major games. He has

leveraged the platforms afforded to him to serve

others, pursue a life of eternal impact, and inspire

those around him to do likewise.

Tim strives to approach every platform he’s given—

not just in sports—with a sense of purpose rooted in

his beliefs. Whether speaking, mentoring, or serving

the world’s Most Vulnerable People (“MVPs”), he

carries the same values of perseverance, humility, and

faith in something greater than himself that guided

him as an athlete.

Tebow strives to redirect any praise or recognition

to the One he believes truly deserves it. His public

expressions of faith are not about grandstanding but

about living authentically and encouraging others to

pursue lasting significance rather than temporary

success.

In omitting all this history and context, the

Eleventh Circuit prejudiced Cambridge Christian by

framing its request for prayer as a kind of

unprecedented request unmoored from the natural

function of its students’ faith and tradition. That the

rest of the analysis would suffer was unavoidable.

18

II.

Should the Eleventh Circuit’s decision

stand, government actors will he

licensed

to

discriminate

against

religious expression under the pretense

of government speech.

In Santa Fe, the Court emphasized that “[sjchool

sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible

because it sends the ancillary message to members of

the audience who are nonadherents ‘that they are

outsiders, not full members of the political

community, and an accompanying message to

adherents that they are insiders, favored members of

the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist.

V. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-10 (2000) (quoting Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J.,

concurring). The error is to think that the government

has any say in how this breaks.

Resolution of whether the adherents or

nonadherents become “insiders” or “outsiders” is

neither possible nor desired at the hands of the

government. This is why careful analysis is necessary

when resolving whether the government speaks as

government and when it only opened the door for a

private citizen’s message. The solution therefore

comes not from an exercise in picking who gets to be

an “insider” today and an “outsider” tomorrow based

on content but from what the First Amendment

requires: “[M]utual respect and tolerance, not

censorship and suppression, for religious and

nonreligious views alike.” Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 514.

' In a pluralistic society, that sometimes means that a

dissenter will inevitahly hear a message they disagree with. But

that alone does not constitute Establishment Clause injury. See

City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas, 143 S. Ct. 764 (2023) (Gorsuch,

J., respecting the denial of certiorari) (“This Court has never

19

But to do this work well, it must be insisted that the

government act consistently and predictably. Done

correctly, it becomes evident that the content itself

won’t matter at all.® Recall, if the government speaks

as government, the First Amendment does no work.

But if the message is that of the private citizen, the

First Amendment is at its zenith and the content—

whatever it may be—is almost certainly protected.

Should the government act inconsistently, however,

it would immediately betray itself as having feigned

neutrality as pretense for viewpoint discrimination.

See Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 263 (Alito, J., concurring)

(“To prevent the government- speech doctrine from

being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus

on the identity of the speaker.”). And FHSAA has

betrayed itself.

As the petitioners demonstrate, the specific history

of prayer at FHSAA is compelling. Not only did

FHSAA allow prayer at a championship game just

three years earlier (at the request of the same team

who is once again at the championship. University

Christian, now adverse to Cambridge Christian), it

allowed prayer at every playoff game leading up to the

championship game at issue. Let alone all the other

instances of obvious private speech conveyed over the

loudspeaker at various games (e.g., commercial

advertising and the like).

endorsed the notion that an ‘offended observer’ may bring an

Establishment Clause claim.” (citing American Legion v.

American Humanist Assn. ,

588 U.S. 29 (2019)).

® Which is helpful because “[t]he Court’s foray into religious

meaning either gives insufficient weight to the views of

nonadherents and adherents alike, or it provides no principled

way to choose between those views.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545

U.S. 677, 697 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

20

This is the opposite of the consistency necessary to

ensure government actors are not raising “concerns

about phantom constitutional violations [to] justify

actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment

rights.” Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 543.

The Eleventh Circuit gave this too cursory of a

review. To start, it treated the most direct

comparative history here (i.e., the prayer at the prior

championship game three years before) with just two

lines. “There is only one example in the record of any

private speaker using the PA system for a pregame

message (religious or secular) at an FHSAA football

state championship [.] One instance, does not a history

make.” Cambridge Christian Sch., Inc. v. Florida

High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 115 F.4th 1266, 1289

(11th Cir. 2024).

And it wholly discounted Cambridge Christian’s

public prayers at each of the playoff games leading up

to the championship because the playoff games

“[were] hosted by one of the participating schools

while championship games are hosted at a neutral

site by the Central Florida Sports Commission in

partnership with the FHSAA.” Id. at 1290. Here the

court took far too narrow of a review. Finding

operative the fact that for the playoff games,

Cambridge Christian “chose the venue and the PA

announcer for those games,” whereas for the

championship “FHSAA chose the venue, and the

Central Florida Sports Commission chose the PA

announcer,” ibid., the Eleventh Circuit ignored that

the venue for all games was chosen in strict

accordance with FHSAA rules. See Florida High

School Athletic Association, Frequently Asked

Questions, bit.ly/SGukmQe (last visited July 6, 2025).

It also found operative that while “FHSAA prepares

21

the PA scripts for all playoff football games” and

championship games, “the pregame prayers at the

non-championship football games were unscripted,

and it’s undisputed that [Cambridge Christian] did

not ask permission from the FHSAA to pray over the

PA system at those games.” Ibid. “In fact,” the court

continued, “there’s no evidence that the FHSAA

actively monitored those early round playoff games or

even knew that prayer was taking place at them,”

ibid., even though all games involved FHSAA

members, under the FHSAA rules. Two obvious

problems.

One, the Eleventh Circuit attempts to distinguish

playoff and championship games on the basis that the

FHSAA hosted the championship games but not the

playoff games. But it never explains why that matters

holistically. Does the fan in the stand have any

appreciation at all for this fact? When FHSAA hosts a

game, do they use public or private stadiums; again,

does that matter to the third-party observer? Does

that matter to the teams? The opinion below

addresses none of this.

Two, as to the level of control FHSAA had over

playoff-game PA scripts, the Eleventh Circuit again

doesn’t explain the import. Does the fact that FHSAA

actually did have a policy of controlling the scripts but

ignored it by allowing unscripted content weigh in

favor of government speech or against it? Shouldn’t

the fact that the FHSAA didn’t monitor playoff games

closely—allowing free use of the forum for private

speech in every game leading up to the

championship—divest it of the right to insist on total

control of the championship game to ban what was a

historical practice of allowing prayer as private speech

as part of FHSAA games? Again, all unanswered.

22

FHSAA is not acting consistently. To afford it the

power to ebb and flow between the categories of

speech by declaring that it will treat one game

differently—without regard to general history and the

specific history of both regular and postseason

games—is a dangerous proposition. It means that the

government has unbridled discretion to decide that

historically indistinguishable circumstances count as

private speech one day and government speech the

next—giving the government the ability to dispense or

withhold First Amendment protections as it sees fit.

This is far from the parity the Establishment Clause

requires. See Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 261 (Kavanaugh,

J., concurring) (“[A] government does not violate the

Establishment Clause merely because it treats

religious persons, organizations, and speech equally

with secular persons, organizations, and speech in

public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like. On

the contrary, a government violates the Constitution

when (as here) it excludes religious persons,

organizations, or speech because of religion from

public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.”

(emphasis in original)).

To the fans, the coaches, the teams, and the public,

FHSAA allowed prayer. It did so as part of the playoff

games. And it did so in a championship game, just

three years earlier. But now it bans it. Though the

Eleventh Circuit says the prior championship game

doesn’t count as history, it never explains how FHSAA

can reconcile the difference.

But it seems the only way FHSAA can reconcile this

practice is to posit that the same conduct it has

historically allowed under identical circumstances

was private speech back then (because it allowed it)

but is now government speech (since it now prohibits

23

it). It cannot be that the mere passage of time is doing

the differentiating work here. It must therefore be

that FHSAA gets to choose whether it is permitting

private speech one day or controlling a government

message the next.

Should the Court deny the petition, it would be

endorsing the dangerous proposition that state actors

can ignore the history that should define the nature of

a forum and decide for themselves when speech is

deemed private and when it is deemed government

speech—masking their viewpoint discrimination.

CONCLUSION

The Court should grant the petition because the

speech below is private speech. Any other holding

sanctions the FHSAA’s call for a license to change

between the categories of speech as convenient.

Historical practice and tradition, fortunately, belie

this position.

Respectfully submitted,

Samuel J. Salario, Jr.

Counsel of Record

Lawson Huck

Gonzalez

1700 South MacDill Ave.

Suite 240

Tampa, FL 33629

(813) 765-5113

sarnuel®

Iawsonhuckgonzalez.com

Alan Lawson

Jason B. Gonzalez

Lawson Huck Gonzalez

215 S. Monroe Street

Suite 320

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Anthony J. Sirven

Brian M. Trujillo

Lawson Huck Gonzalez

121 Alhambra Plaza

Floor No. 10

Miami, FL 33134

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

July 10, 2025