The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit governed On Tuesday, Texas required public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a closely divided en banc decision in Nathan Independent School District v. Alamo HeightsThe court lifted a lower court’s injunction blocking enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 10, allowing the law to take effect while litigation continued.
The majority held that the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Stone vs. Grahamthat determined that the mandatory presentation of the Ten Commandments in the classroom was unconstitutional no longer controls. According to the court, Stone relied on the now-abandoned “lemon test” as a framework for assessing whether a law had a secular purpose, a primary effect promoting religion, or excessive entanglement with religion. Instead, the court adopted a newer approach that focused on history and tradition. Within this framework, the majority concluded that references to religion, including the Ten Commandments, have long been part of the nation’s public life and legal heritage. It noted that the display requirement fits within this tradition. The court emphasized that the law does not compel students to engage in religious activities because there is no obligation to read, recite, or follow the Ten Commandments and does not provide for a penalty for rejecting them. The majority therefore rejected allegations of coercion. The court also accepted the state’s stated purpose that the exhibitions serve an educational function, pointing to the Ten Commandments as part of the historical and moral foundations of Western legal systems.
Texas Senate Bill 10 Requires that a state-approved version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. Displays must be at least 16 x 20 inches in size and clearly visible and must be donated and not purchased with public funds.
The case was brought by a multi-faith group of families who argued that it forced a religious message on students in violation of the First Amendment. A federal district court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction and finding that the law was likely unconstitutional. Similar challenges in other cases including Cribbs-Ringer v. Comal Independent School Districtalso resulted in courts blocking enforcement of the law at the county level. Challengers represented by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union And Americans United for Separation of Church and Stateargued that the law amounted to state support for religion. They pointed to the use of a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and argued that students cannot realistically avoid daily confrontation. The plaintiffs also raised concerns about parents’ rights and alleged that the state interferes in decisions about children’s religious education.
