This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), demonstrating how her meticulous factual reconstruction and constitutional analysis offer a fundamentally different understanding of the case’s legal and constitutional significance. The chapter begins by examining how Justice Sotomayor challenges the majority’s factual narrative, arguing that Justice Gorsuch’s constitutional analysis rests upon a deliberately sanitized version of events that obscures the true institutional and coercive nature of Mr. Kennedy’s conduct. Through a detailed examination of Justice Sotomayor’s factual reconstruction, the analysis reveals how Mr. Kennedy’s practice evolved from initially solitary prayers into institutionalized team activities involving “demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line” where he “consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student-athletes in prayer at the same time and location.” The chapter explores Justice Sotomayor’s documentation of actual coercion evidence, including parent reports that children participated in Mr. Kennedy’s prayers “solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team” and district court findings that players felt “compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time.” The analysis examines Justice Sotomayor’s sophisticated constitutional framework that recognizes the inherent tension between Free Exercise and Establishment Clause values, contrasting her approach with the majority’s portrayal of “complementary” constitutional purposes. The chapter details her defense of traditional Establishment Clause doctrine, including the endorsement standard and Lemon test, demonstrating how established precedent provides practical guidance for institutional actors navigating constitutional requirements. Justice Sotomayor’s refined analysis of coercion receives particular attention, especially her emphasis on indirect forms of religious pressure and the contextual approach to constitutional analysis that accounts for institutional power relationships and historical practices rather than isolating individual incidents. The chapter examines her application of established school prayer precedents, revealing how cases like Santa Fe and Lee v. Weisman provide clear constitutional guidance that the majority’s factual distinctions fail to overcome. The analysis concludes by examining Justice Sotomayor’s constitutional vision, which prioritizes institutional neutrality, minority protection, and democratic values over individual religious liberties. This approach presents an alternative to religious liberty, prioritizing constitutional balance and institutional accountability while protecting vulnerable individuals in educational contexts. Throughout, the chapter demonstrates how Justice Sotomayor’s dissent represents more than a disagreement with specific holdings; it offers a comprehensive constitutional framework that maintains the delicate balance between religious liberty and institutional neutrality essential to protecting both majority and minority religious exercise in a diverse democratic society.