Federal Judge Blocks Law Mandating Ten Commandments Displays in Louisiana Classrooms
The law "is not neutral toward religion," wrote Judge John W. deGravelles, who ruled that the law was "facially unconstitutional."

A Louisiana law mandating that public school classrooms display posters of the Ten Commandments has been halted by a federal judge, who ruled that the law is "facially unconstitutional."
The law, H.B. 71, was signed in June. It requires public school classrooms—regardless of grade level or subject matter—to display large posters of the document at least 11 inches by 14 inches and in a "large, easily readable font." Supporters of the law argued that it didn't violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, claiming that the displays were intended to educate students on the historical impact of the Ten Commandments, rather than religiously indoctrinate them. The law also banned taxpayer funds from going to support the posters, instead requiring schools to accept donations.
The law was almost immediately met with a legal challenge from parents who claimed that the mandate violated their ability to instill their preferred religious values in their children.
The law "unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," reads the suit, filed in June. "It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that H.B. 71 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state's religious preferences."
On Tuesday, Louisiana federal judge John W. deGravelles granted a preliminary injunction on the law, writing that H.B. 71 "is not neutral toward religion, and this is evident from the text of the statute, its effects, and the statements of lawmakers before and after the Act's passage.
"Since the law is not neutral," deGravelles continued, "it easily fails strict scrutiny analysis; even assuming AG Defendants had established a compelling interest (e.g., for education or history), there are any number of ways that they could advance an alleged interest in educating students about the Ten Commandments that would be less burdensome on the First Amendment than the one required by" the law.
The ruling was met with immediate praise from those who challenged it as an unconstitutional overreach of religious instruction into state-run schools.
"This ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity," said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief said in a Tuesday statement. "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and today's decision ensures that our clients' classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems like an obvious decision -- the first four commandments are clearly religious. Even if they are shared by 3 major religions, religious instruction should be saved for churches and private schools.
Mostly, yes, though there is an interesting debate over on the Volokh side about whether the judge was right to issue this as a state-wide injunction rather than limiting it to just the schools whose parents complained. This will almost certainly be appealed and may be overturned, at least on that point of scope.
If the law is facially unconstitutional, then it is void and unenforceable. Its a statewide law that would have applied to every public school in the state so the scope of the relief seems proper. Nobody has to follow an unconstitutional/void law. Not sure what the debate is about.
The debate will be over:
a) whether the statute really is facially unconstitutional (I think it is but reasonable people could disagree); and
b) even if so, whether that automatically makes the law "void and unenforceable" as to everyone or only as to the plaintiffs. On that point, there are competing precedents. The precedents supporting broad injunctions are plentiful - so plentiful that their downsides have become apparent and older precedents against broad injunctions are being viewed more favorably.
Good. Now close public schools.
^This +100000000.
Excellent.
It will be fun if this reaches the supreme court and all nine justices recuse because the ten commandments are carved into their building.
Great news! Now do DEI, CRT and LGBTQ2+SSMAP.
Evangelical performative bullshit, and obviously the correct decision. As Rossami notes, the interesting point is the extent of the ruling.
Obviously the right decision. I do wonder though whether there is a case to be made to allow a curriculum that includes religious texts – that would use a school facility like a classroom – with no taxpayer funding of either curriculum, texts, teacher, and no mandate on students/parents.
A charter classroom so to speak – with zero transfer of tax funding. Just the classroom rented out for an hour.
Aside from the obvious case where texts are taught as part of comparative religion - which I suspect is not what you're thinking about - the only issue is whether the school is neutral to other groups wishing to teach. For example, if a PS permits this - with a modest charge representing the cost of providing the facility - they can't then deny the facility to say the Church of Satan, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, or some Humanist/atheist organisation And I think that would always be the sticking point.
Actually comparative religion or something like impact of religion on [name your academic discipline] is exactly what I would hope would become available. But yeah - I suspect that Church of Critical Race Theory or Church of Jihad against Infidels etc is what would immediately make things touchy even for those who currently are totally ok with tax-paid charter or home schools (even for religion) but not with non-tax-paid charter classrooms.
Hard to keep curriculum out of politics even though school facilities themselves don't create the same political turf lines.
I recall a story from a year or two ago about a public high school in MN, I think. The community didn't like that some students and a teacher started a Santanist after-school club that was using one of the classrooms for meetings. The school board ruled that because there were several Christian clubs at the school, the Satanist one couldn't be banned. The right decision, as I see it.
I don't see why not. When I was in elementary school the Catholic church next door used the classrooms for Sunday school.
Any history class on the origins of the West is likely going to have many religious texts in the curriculum, given their importance in shaping culture over the centuries.
Where I have seen those examples have legal problems re the curriculum is in communities with a strong evangelical/fundamentalist element. Where political pressure is exerted to treat those texts as uncritical scripture. eg Moses - Myth or Charlton Heston? Once that happens, the line between academic treatment and advocacy/religion is crossed and a counter-legal strategy is made to eliminate that entirely.
Is there a public school that doesn't currently "[pressure] students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture"?
Most of them, except when local Christians manage to overpower the Constitution briefly.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Judging by the complete loss of objective reality on the Left, I’m gonna call bullshit. The left pushes an ideology with religious fervor and has no competition. Time to make some.
Seems to me there was a lot of kneeling and chanting promoted in public schools not too long ago.
Can I ask what is the libertarian argument against state rights? Because as I see it, state rights push legislation closer to the individual, so on the spectrum of statist to individual, it’s going in the right direction.
But that seems to be anathema to this brand of libertarian and I’m curious why. Can’t people who don’t like it exercise their right to free movement and leave?
State rights are such bullshit.
The far right is supposedly up in arms about federal overreach.
And yet they have no problem imposing their idiotic laws on the mostly liberal large cities in their own red states.
This isn’t about any « state rights » , this is a just a power grab, plain and simple.
It’s a historical document/record, and honestly just a list of really good and important things to know to be a decent, functioning, American citizen (and human being).
I mean, would anybody in their right mind object to this instead?
1) Our existence is inexplicably complex, and you do not exist by accident or cosmic randomness.
2) Don’t worship yourself/others. You’re not as important as you think.
3) Have a little respect for your use of language.
4) Show some humility and gratitude for your existence and everything in it.
5) Family is the foundation of civilized society. Honor it, respect it.
6) Don’t kill people. (No, not even little ones inside other people.)
7) Don’t betray promises, and especially don’t betray vows.
8) Don’t steal from people.
9) Tell the truth.
10) Appreciate what you have instead of obsessing over what you don’t.
What possible objection could anyone have to ANY of that being taught to any student anywhere? Every faith and creed, every culture, every society – these are rules for success. Doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe or where you come from.
If you can’t tolerate words in schools like, “Do not kill” or “Tell the truth” because you think it might arguably have a religious angle – then, seriously, seek help. You don’t need to be a Jew or a Christian to accept any of this. And accepting it certainly won’t magically make you one.
There’s a lot more to Judaism, and especially Christianity, than just the Law of Moses.
Take a pill, let the kids learn something ACTUALLY useful in schools for a change.
Besides the poor interpretation of the Establishment Clause (what it really says, in the language of the time, is "Congress can't make laws about churches"), the problem here is that religious actions are restricted while the equivalent secular ones are not. Either make it "separation of opinion and State", or else leave things to federalism/localism for things are mere trappings of government rather than its operation.