The dispute in Cambridge Christian School stems from the FHSAA denying the high school’s request to use the stadium loudspeaker to hold a brief prayer before a 2015 state high school football championship. The FHSAA, a state entity, denied the request because it was concerned about appearing to endorse or sponsor a religion. The high school sued on religious liberty grounds, but was unsuccessful at both the federal district court and the federal appeals court, ultimately bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

First Liberty Institute, a religious liberty legal group backing the high school in the lawsuit, expressed its disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case but vowed to continue bringing religious liberty cases to the high court.

“The 11th Circuit’s decision to label the prayer as government speech abandons the foundational promises of the First Amendment that are meant to guarantee individual freedom,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, said on Monday. “We are disappointed in the court’s decision, but will continue to work for the religious freedom of every student in every school across the nation.”

The Supreme Court has handed religious liberty advocates several wins in recent years, including allowing parents to opt their children out of LGBT books and materials at schools with its June ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In 2022, the high court sided with a high school football coach who was fired over his postgame prayers on the field. The justices did not elaborate on their decision to deny the petition in Cambridge Christian School.

The only denied petition in Monday’s orders list that drew a written dissent was the decision not to take up Hutson v. United States. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said he would have taken up the appeal over a lower court order to create a new facility for inmates with mental health problems.

“I would have granted certiorari to terminate the longstanding and unlawful prison-building order at the center of this case,” Alito wrote.

Alito also said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by placing “the burden on the party supporting the injunction — not the party seeking termination” of the order that mandated the creation of the new facility.

“That gets the inquiry backwards. It was not the sheriff’s burden to provide a basis for termination; it was the opposing parties’ burden to show a basis for maintaining the injunction,” Alito said.

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW LEGALITY OF ‘METERING’ POLICY FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS AT BORDER

Justice Neil Gorsuch also said he would have granted review of the petition, but did not join Alito’s written dissent of the decision.

The lone case the Supreme Court granted review in its Monday order list centers on the dormant “metering” border policy of blocking asylum-seekers from reaching U.S. soil to make their claims during migrant surges at the border.