Free speech, and free exercise of religion, are prized American liberties, guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Also enshrined in that very same First Amendment — its very first phrase, in fact — is the principle that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This principle is the basis of the separation of church and state — barring a national, state or local government from backing an official religion or enforcing religious doctrine.

Reconciling one First Amendment right with another can be tricky. Courts have determined that it violates the Constitution if public school officials call students to prayer. But last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual prayer by a respected school leader, a coach, after a game is acceptable, because the school leader was exercising his right to free speech and free exercise of religion.

It now falls on Hawaii schools to respect the distinction between school employees’ protected individual expression in prayer, and establishment of religion in leading, coercing or forcing students into prayer. While that may sometimes be difficult, under a best-case scenario it provides the opportunity for “teachable moments” at school that show respect for both free expression and freedom of — and from — religion.

Much hinges on the distinction between individual freedom of speech and religious expression and “establishment” of religion. The Supreme Court’s June 27 decision drew that distinction in considering a very public display of religious expression — a coach who knelt on the 50-yard line in post-game prayer, and whom some students had joined in praying.

A key element of the Supreme Court ruling was its specification that it applied to “private speech,” rather than prayer during class time or an organized practice period. The court explained that the coach knelt to pray after the games were over, and stated that this was a time when the coach was no longer directing the students.

It’s worth noting, though, that the coach had previously given students inspirational, religious talks and led students in locker-room prayers, without notifying school officials. The Supreme Court did not defend this.

Hawaii public schools should take care to note that distinction between free time and times when students are under the control of school figures.

The Supreme Court ruling does not create an opening to lead prayers during class time and should not be interpreted as an OK to lead prayers during organized time for games or practice.

That may apply to some Hawaii coaches who habitually lead prayers before games.

Existing Hawaii Board of Education (BOE) policy would also apply. BOE Policy 900-3 says public school employees, acting officially, cannot initiate prayers or religious practices during school or school-sponsored activities.

Moments of reflection or discussion with no overt or forced religious behavior should not be problematic. According to this Supreme Court ruling, neither should open prayer during free time, whether by a coach, other school official or a student, if students are not urged or required to participate.

That all sounds reasonable, but as students experience these scenarios in real life, the distinctions may be far more blurred. Upon the sight of a respected coach or other school leader praying in a very visible way, it’s not unlikely that youthful teammates would feel compelled, or peer pressure, to join in.

If schools allow for free discussion of the rationale behind this Supreme Court ruling, as well as the balanced application of local rules, they can foster an appreciation for the right to religious freedom as well as free thought, while protecting both.

The Supreme Court’s decision specifically protects the practice and visibility of religion in public life. It remains the responsibility of the adults in the room — school officials — to protect students against religious coercion.