Appeals Court Blocks Louisiana Ten Commandments in Classrooms Law
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.

On Friday, a federal appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling blocking a Louisiana law mandating that public school classrooms display posters of the Ten Commandments. The decision is the latest development in a series of state-level attempts to mandate religious instruction in public schools.
"This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education," Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a Friday press release. "With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Last June, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed House Bill 71 into law, which mandates that all public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments "on a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches," printed "in a large, easily readable font." The state tried to avoid claims that the law violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from "respecting an establishment of religion," by requiring displays to either be donated or purchased with privately donated funds and allowing teachers to display the Ten Commandments next to other important historical legal documents. However, courts have not found these arguments convincing. In November, a Louisiana federal judge blocked the law, writing that it was "facially unconstitutional."
The state appealed, and last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed that the lower court's injunction was correct and that the law likely violated the First Amendment.
While incorporating study of religious text into some classroom contexts is constitutional (for example, a study of world religions), "The statute does not require that the Ten Commandments be integrated into a curriculum of study," the court's majority opinion reads. "On the contrary, under the statute's minimum requirements, the posters must be indiscriminately displayed in every public school classroom in Louisiana regardless of class subject-matter."
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option. Plaintiffs are not mere bystanders," said the court.
Louisiana isn't the only state to attempt to force public schools to engage in explicit religious instruction. In Oklahoma, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters released a memo last year requiring public schools "to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support into the curriculum." Walters has also sought to mandate that classrooms stock Bibles.
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
Shame on everyone diverting time and energy from a suffering world to argue about putting up a sign in a classroom. They were universal in colonial times. Uinversal, everywhere.
Shame on everyone for building Commie-Indoctrination camps for kids in a nation created specifically to avoid the curse of communism.
Speaking of diverting time and energy to criminal efforts of 'armed-theft' and Gov-Gun dictation. Course yelling and screaming like babies to get what you want with 'Guns' against those 'icky' people is what the "conquer and consume" mentality does. Never hesitating for even a second to consider what they want only requires them to *EARN* it in a Free & Just society.
“ Shame on everyone diverting time and energy from a suffering world to argue about putting up a sign in a classroom”
Shame on them for being anti-Constitutional theocrats. Religion has no place in public schools and the government has no business choosing any religion to support. Government, under the Constitution, is a secular thing and should always be separated from religion.
70% of the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional if passed into law. If you want Christian’s propaganda in your life, buy a poster and put it up in your house.
Can we ban all other official religious displays in public schools, too? No more pride flags, Title IX shrines, Church of Climatology posters, etc.
you have 4 lawyer-prone words in what you think is clear : We (just voters, registered?), official ( so what about 10 commandments as historical document ?) displays(is a book or internet video a display, I use both in my Constitution Day lectures) and public ( is public just being in a public building? Is it the public of the city, the county, the state?)
The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .
And most of all, everybody is concerned about death, evil, God so to call "religion' what is official misses the point. Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing. Eg taking the life of an innocent child in abortion is either killing or it isn't. That is an ultimate.
The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .
The plaintiffs were Louisiana parents.
https://reason.com/2024/07/01/louisiana-parents-sue-over-law-mandating-10-commandments-displays-in-classrooms/
Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing.
Your example does not prove this. One can believe on religious grounds that abortion is murder, and one can believe on religious grounds that it's not murder and may on occasion be obligatory; but one can be an atheist and believe that a human life begins at conception, or be an atheist and believe that a fetus is not fully human until late on in pregnancy and so an earlier abortion is not killing.
By your own words it might be killing
And if you leave it at that you are a murderer
To doubt is a misfortune, but to seek when in doubt is an indispensable duty. So he who doubts and seeks not is at once unfortunate and unfair.
Blaise Pascal
And one can seek and conclude that there is no objective nor definitive answer.
But you are not a Louisianian, as virtually everybody on here knew me to be saying
But you are not a Louisianian, as virtually everybody on here knew me to be saying
No. You know what you intended, but what you wrote, in context, did not clearly state your intention, and made more sense when read the way I read it.
And you are wont to make claims about what (almost) everybody knows or thinks here without any supporting evidence.
But he says he’s a professor, so he’s right and you’re wrong.
Whether anyone believes his claim is an open question. Most people can read his “logic” and figure out he’s not, but there are paleocons here that may buy it.
Well, we do have lots of lawyers to keep busy, right?
What I meant by official and public is a legal requirement to display a recognized religious document in a facility funded by tax dollars. IMO we either allow any and all religion-inspired displays or none. You don't get to support Jesus or Allah but no Wicca or Gaia.
And while I would enjoy the shouting if anyone could post stuff, I recognized the distractions for an educational facility for children, and would accept "none" as policy.
You’re a professor like I’m a space alien.
“ The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .”
Government pushing Christianity affects us all. The lunatic theocrats won’t stop in Louisiana. They think America should be a theocratic Christian government, not a secular one like the Constitution created.
“ Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing”
That would make almost everything in life religious, which is clearly nonsense. Wingnuts love to act like terms are way broader than they actually are so they can create false equivalence between the real thing and something that isn’t at all related.
“ Eg taking the life of an innocent child in abortion is either killing or it isn't”
It isn’t. And roughly 90% of Americans agree on that. There is only about 19% support for the “life begins at conception” delusion, so stop pretending that it’s a self-evident fact that everyone agrees on. It isn’t.
“ Can we ban all other official religious displays in public schools, too? No more pride flags, Title IX shrines, Church of Climatology posters, etc.”
I see you’re doing that thing where you take things you don’t like and pretending they are a religion. Even as rhetoric it’s dumb.
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.
However, the sexual grooming and indoctrination may continue from kindergarten to graduation.
Perversion is permitted; piety is not.
The fact that the hard right shamelessly and falsely claim teachers are pedophiles and sexual groomers is one of the more despicable aspects of their virulent worldview. That is a serious and disgusting crime and casually slapping that accusation on almost 4 million Americans based solely on their profession is about as disgusting a behavior as there is.
Especially since it usually goes hand-in-hand with dismissing the century-plus history of support and facilitation of pedophiles that the Catholic Church has engaged in. And the Boy Scouts. And the Southern Baptists. And the Mormons. And the Jehova’s Witnesses. And the Hasidic Jews. And … well, you get the point.
Pedophilia in religious organizations is far, far more prevalent than in education and, when it’s discovered, educators almost always help prosecute the pedophiles and religious organizations almost always cover up and protect them.
Piety is a behavior-based accolade. Most religious people aren’t pious.
Given the legal precedents this was clearly DOA. The battle was lost a long time ago. Waste of taxpayer dollars in my view.
As it should be. Government and religion should never mix.
If the 5th Circuit finds against a state on a religious matter, you know that the state had gone too far.
A pleasant smattering of whataboutism, I see.
Is the Fifth Circuit known for siding with religion? Or perhaps a better question would be is the Fifth Circuit unusually supportive of cultural conservatism (conservatism imposed by the state, as opposed to social conservatism, which is personal beliefs and behavior, not projecting it onto others)?
The Fifth Circuit is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, even if it is undermined by other precedent. This means that the Fifth Circuit had to apply Stone v. Graham (1980) even though that decision was based on the Lemon Test, which was overruled, along with Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), by the 2022 Kennedy decision.
The Supreme Court is not so bound and will almost assuredly overrule Stone v. Graham. What I wonder is how far the Conservative majority will go. I hope it does not undermine decisions like Engle v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), respectively dealing with public school-led prayer and Bible readings that forced students to either take part in the exercises or be expelled from the classroom for the duration of the exercise.
Stone v. Graham was decided correctly. Ten Commandments in the classroom is establishment of religion.
It was decided based on Lemon. At the time, it was a proper application of the Lemon Test, but Lemon was overruled in 2022. This makes Stone v. Graham a hollow decision; its holding is binding, but its reasoning has been rejected. Under the current standard (Kennedy), the Court would have to decide that, based on American history, displaying the Ten Commandments in a public school was a form of religious coercion. I consider it very unlikely that two of the six Conservative Justices would join the three Liberal Justices to find coercion.
You may not like the above, but I'm just giving you the facts on the ground. Elections have consequences and this is one from the 2016 election.
“Elections have consequences” should never extend to violating the Constitution. That is a disgusting perspective.
Of course the Ten Commandments in schools is coercive. It is literally the government putting up signs telling kids what religion to believe in.
“Elections have consequences” should never extend to violating the Constitution. That is a disgusting perspective.
Elections determine who will be the President to make nominations to the Court and who will be in the Senate to decide whether to confirm the nominee. That determines who will be on the Court to decide whether it is Constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Of course the Ten Commandments in schools is coercive. It is literally the government putting up signs telling kids what religion to believe in.
A perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but one I believe will receive only three votes on the Court. As I said earlier, I'm giving the facts of the situation. I would not display any religious text in public schools. Even putting the Establishment Clause to one side, the government will treat the preferred religion as its property if given the chance. This has never been good historically for the People, even for those who are adherents to the preferred religion.
If an earlier SC precedent is overturned by subsequent SC cases, it surely is no longer binding on inferior courts?
True, but Stone v. Graham has not been overruled by SCOTUS.
It's an interesting jurisprudence question, whether the overturning of a precedential principle has the effect of overturning all cases based upon it even if no explicit overturning occurs, and whether, hence, a lower court is still bound. Certainly when it comes to laws (and treaties), a law is considered to have been repealed if a later law is passed which runs counter to the earlier, even if there's no explicitly stated repeal. I can see both sides of this, as I am sure you do.
I do, but the Supreme Court has consistently told the lower courts that there are no implied overrulings. The result is hollowed out decisions, like Stone v. Graham.
Thanks!
“ The Supreme Court is not so bound and will almost assuredly overrule Stone v. Graham”
Is there no precedent that has a foundation in the First Amendment? It seems like State posting of a religion’s core tenets is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
There is a reason that anyone not dedicated to Christian-izing the government understands the phrase “separation of Church and State” and views it as a good thing. Is there no SCOTUS precedent that addresses the “secular government” implications of the Establishment Clause?
Shut down all public schools. this is the only way
The negative repercussions to the country would be vast and largely negative.
It would stratify society into those who can afford education and those who can’t, with prosperity being available only if you can afford to educate your child.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
If you substitute education for democracy and learning for government, it’s basically the best way to view public education.
Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.
I find multiplication charts to be an unwelcome display. Same goes for cursive handwriting illustrations. In fact, why'd you even give me a history book for my history class? That's not welcome. And don't even get me started on the human anatomy posters, you transphobes.
Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.
They do. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments doesn't make them less welcomed, it makes them MORESO.
If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option. Plaintiffs are not mere bystanders," said Satan.
FTFY.
Religion is very, very different than multiplication tables and cursive. Even you aren’t so vapid as to claim otherwise.
Religion is a personal, individual thing. If you want the Ten Commandments, put them up in your house. Don’t try to advertise your specific flavor of cult in public schools.
Religion is very, very different than multiplication tables and cursive.
How? The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact. No different than a times table or an illustration of how to write cursive. It's not like you'll be punished in America for denying them. Might be regarded as an idiot, but that's all the more reason for displaying them - so you can avoid idiocy.
Wait, you're not one of those psychos that openly advocates for anarchistic defenses of blasphemy, idolatry, murder, theft, deceit, adultery, and covetousness, are you?
Religion is a personal, individual thing.
lol, no it's not. Violate the First Commandment a little harder why don't you.
The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact.
LOL. Religious commandments are not facts
Name one line of them that isn't 100% accurate in its factuality, and tell me why it's wrong.
“ How? The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact”
It is a simple recitation of opinion. And only one religion’s opinion, at that. Even the adherents of that religion ignore a good number of them.
“ It's not like you'll be punished in America for denying them”
That isn’t pertinent to anything. Students shouldn’t be subjected to religious propaganda. And shoving it in everyone’s face is, basically, punishing students.
It is a purely religious document and has no place in public schools. The State is, and should always remain, secular.
“ Might be regarded as an idiot,”
It’s much more likely that someone who strictly adheres to them would be regarded as an idiot. Especially the “Sabbath Day” and “Lord’s name in vain” stuff that almost every Christian ignores on a regular basis.
“ lol, no it's not. Violate the First Commandment a little harder why don't you.”
I’m not a Christian, so I can’t. That’s the point. Religion is something each person chooses for themselves. It is personal. We are a nation of Christians (although less and less each year), but we are not a Christian nation. And that’s intentional. It’s by design.
It’s the Constitution, which is a much better guide to moral behavior than the Bible. It opposes genocide and wife beating, unlike the Bible. And since we fixed it while killing the most evil organization in American history, the Confederacy, it also opposes slavery (again, unlike the Bible).
It is a simple recitation of opinion.
Whose opinion do you think it's reciting?
Even the adherents of that religion ignore a good number of them.
Yea, humans are sinful. The fact that reality is ignored doesn't change reality. A particularly glaring illustration of this is LGBT Pedo.
Students shouldn’t be subjected to religious propaganda.
It's not religious propaganda. You can keep calling it that, but that's not going to make it true. And even if it were up for debate, which it's not, students are subjected to lots of debatable subjects - some of which they may even vociferously disagree with. For example, evolutionary theory. Or, again, LGBT Pedo.
Especially the “Sabbath Day” and “Lord’s name in vain” stuff that almost every Christian ignores on a regular basis.
Do you actually know any Christians?
Also, though it pains me to say so, there's Christians - and then there's Catholics. If they're not Catholic, they're not really doing Christianity correctly in the first place.
Martin Luther had some valid criticisms. Protestantism, on the other hand, is just "I make my own Christianity."
Not how it works.
Anyway, even floundering Catholics - and there are many, to be sure - doesn't change the fact that their ignoring the Commandments has no bearing whatsoever on the factual nature of them.
I’m not a Christian, so I can’t.
Yea, actually, you can. You're literally doing it right this minute.
I'll pray for you Nelson, but you need to make better choices. God gave you that freedom. Don't spit it in His face.
Religion is something each person chooses for themselves.
That's stupid. That's like saying, "I can fly," and jumping off a building. No, you can't fly. And you will CHOOSE to fall to your death. Your ignorant, stupid, pointless death.
The Ten Commandments - or, more appropriately, the Gospel - is your way to avoid such a thing.
It’s the Constitution, which is a much better guide to moral behavior than the Bible.
Anyone want to tell him?
What if the first 3 were removed? If nothing that referred to God remained, would it still be religious? Especially given that these words are pretty much thought of as moral precepts everywhere on earth?
I don't think either side would like that. Supporters of such displays would be upset that references to God had been removed. Opponents would point out that the seven commandments displayed would be direct quotes from the Bible.
“ What if the first 3 were removed?”
Well, #4 requires keeping the Sabbath day holy, so that’s out as well. Here is what we have, in a nutshell:
#1 I am the Lord, thy God. You shall have no other gods before Me.
—>This is unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of religion) and only immoral for Christians.
#2 You shall make no idols.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and is theoretically immoral for Christians only, but most of them don’t care.
#3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but largely ignored by the vast majority of them.
#4 Keep the Sabbath day holy.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of religion) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but completely ignored by the vast majority of them (except the Amish and Mennonite)
#5 Honor your father and your mother.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but largely ignored by the vast majority of them.
#6 You shall not murder.
—> Finally something both constitutional and universally moral. It was universally immoral long before Moses, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.
#7 You shall not commit adultery.
—> Back to unconstitutional, with the “universal morality” completely dependent on your willingness to accept that marriage isn’t “until death do us part”. Adultery isn’t inherently immoral, unless you believe marriage is a religious, not contractual, arrangement.
#8 You shall not steal.
—> Constitutional Commandment #2. Also fair to characterize as universally immoral. So #2 there as well.
#9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
—> Back to unconstitutional, since lying is protected speech. And given how often everyone lies about things both large and small, calling it a universally immoral behavior is patently ridiculous.
If you read this as only applying to lying under oath in a court of law, then it would be constitutional. Calling it a universally immoral behavior would be a reach, so maybe we split the difference. So 2 1/2 constitutional Commandments and 2 1/2 universally moral principles.
I usually round this up to 3 when pointing out the inherent unconstitutional and Christian-specific morality of the Ten Commandments.
#10 You shall not covet.
—> Unconstitutional and completely moral. This is one of the cornerstones of capitalism, the single most important advancement in human history. It’s not only moral, it’s laudable.
So basically there are only 2-3 Commandments that are even constitutional. There are only 2 that could credibly be called universal morality (murder and stealing), with maybe adultery and lying thrown in as fluff, since they’re more honored in the breach. And the immoral character of murder and stealing predates Christianity (and the Old Testament itself), so there are exactly zero unique things that the Ten Commandments bring to the table that weren’t already viewed as immoral.
Pretending the Ten Commandments is some sort of moral guide to anyone other than the most strict Christians is nonsense. Even Christians don’t follow them all and wouldn’t consider many of them immoral behavior.
Perhaps you see it differently?
^^This.
Just say "I am my own god."
That's all your oh-so-thorough review comes down to. You think you're your own god. Tell me I'm wrong.
You've shrouded yourself in the Constitution to try and pretend it gives you legitimacy, but you've ignored all the morality behind the Constitution. Mostly because you want to twist and invert it to your own purposes.
All your blathering - it's all just relativism at the end of the day. This is particularly evidenced by how many times you proclaim that adherents fail to obey - as if that were somehow proof that the command is false and/or meant to be disobeyed.
What's hilarious in particular is when you use the term "universally moral." Like you don't see the hypocrisy of that at all.
There are four kinds of sins, Nelson:
Mortal sins against God (1-3)
Mortal sins against Society (4-5)
Venial sins against Others (6-8)
Venial sins against Self (9-10)
And they're written in order of just how sinful they are. You're intentionally reading them as secular, because you have decided yourself your own god and therefore choose not to recognize sin but instead regard it only as behavior.
Meaning you do not understand it at all, nor do you have any desire to.
Which version of said 10 Commandments? The Jewish, Catholic or Protestant version?
If you allow the 10 Commandments then you open the door to any and all religious texts. Did they learn nothing from Nativities and Menorahs on public properties? That lead to the Satanists having their won displays.
Tis si why Christmas is recognized as a legal holiday, it having been secularized, which;le Easter, which is far less secularized is not.
Imagine if we had to recognize all legal holidays the practitioners demanded? There would be few, if any work days left!