Cambridge v. FHSAA

Under Kennedy's historical-practice framework, the FHSAA's denial cannot rest on abstract Establishment Clause anxiety; it must instead point to historical practices that actually prohibited religious speech in similar government-sponsored forums. Applied to these facts, the restriction appears vulnerable to a Rosenberger viewpoint-discrimination challenge if the FHSAA permitted other student or community speech at the championship (a plausible inference from the record), since excluding only the religious message while allowing secular speech suggests content-based discrimination rather than a neutral policy. The critical question Kennedy presents is whether historical practice supports religious-speech exclusions at mixed public forums, or whether the shift from Lemon actually empowers religious speakers to access government venues open to other expressive activities, potentially requiring the FHSAA to grant Cambridge Christian's request.