i suppose counsel for the coach would argue that, sort of, as a matter of law SCOTUS has determined a prayer circle on the 50 is not "coercive" but that's why they hire lawyers..

so, arguably, i think a lower court could try and distinguish the facts of a new case to the "facts" undergirding the precedential case. "here, there is no factual dispute that the coach is holding a prayer circle. the finding of fact is that it was coercive, and thus distinguishable."