So where was it documented that he was coercing other people? It is certainly a fact that other people, players both on his team and other teams, did choose to join him. The schools argument for him to stop was that the administration felt that players might feel compelled to join him against their wishes, but is there literally anything that was entered in to evidence that he forced anyone to join or punished anyone for choosing not to join him? I don’t think so. He chose to pray and others chose to join him.

Frankly, I think the argument to support Kennedy was pretty compelling. The first amendment allows for the free practice of any religion by the people. It makes no commentary on the government specifically censoring any religion. In fact it appears to be just the opposite. The text reads that the government has a duty to not act at all when religious expression is made by the people.

There's an inherent power imbalance in a teacher-student relationship. There is the constant threat of punishment used to establish authority. Teachers tell students what to do and students are expected to do it.

And that's all in public schools!

Seems to me you are not so much arguing against a first amendment case here but rather the eighth.

Sure, but is it documented anywhere? Most free American students, mostly conservative, would stand for their rights, even with "inherent" power imbalances.

> The District Court found, in the evidentiary record, that some students reported joining Kennedy’s prayer because they felt social pressure to follow their coach and teammates.

From Sotomayor's dissent, page 18: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

It's important to note that coercion doesn't have to be explicit with observed punishments and rewards, and Sotomayor explains this quite clearly (including how courts have previously held this to be true for many years).

Like most SCOTUS opinions and dissents, these are technically well-written, accessible, and easy to read - I would encourage you to do so. They sometimes even border on enjoyable to read (although maybe I'm just weird). The case as laid out in the dissent is rather egregious, and it's shocking that the SCOTUS upheld such a clear violation of the establishment clause. It's shocking that they even heard the case to begin with.