Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Supreme Court

Texas Requires the Ten Commandments Be Posted in Every Classroom. SCOTUS May Decide If That's Constitutional.

A major separation-of-church-and-state case lands at the Supreme Court.

Damon Root | 8.20.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Red background, a desk, an apple stacked on books next to a pencil cup, and the Ten Commandments on stone tablets | Illustration: ESBBasics/Envato/erika8213/Envato
(Illustration: ESBBasics/Envato/erika8213/Envato)

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from passing any law "respecting the establishment of religion." Yet Texas has passed a law requiring every public school classroom in the state to prominently display the text of the Ten Commandments, as it appears in the King James version of the Bible. Does that state law violate the Establishment Clause?

You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Earlier this week, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing a number of Texas families "of diverse faiths and beliefs—including Baha'ism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, and nonreligious traditions—whose children attend Texas public schools," asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rule against the Texas law.

These legal challengers have a strong case based on existing SCOTUS precedent. In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Court struck down a nearly identical Kentucky law that required the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. "This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like," the Court said. "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause."

And more recently, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Court held that the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion is infringed when a school "substantially interfere[s] with the religious development" of a family's child or "pose[s] 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child." As this week's ACLU brief put it, "if the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents' ability to direct their children's religious education…it is difficult to imagine what would."

However, not every member of the current Supreme Court is such a big fan of the Court's existing jurisprudence in this area of the law. Justice Clarence Thomas, for one, has argued that the Establishment Clause should be read as a limitation only on the federal government. "The Establishment Clause is a federalism provision," Thomas has written, "which…resists incorporation."

Incorporation refers to the legal doctrine under which the various individual liberties and limits on government power that are contained in the Bill of Rights have been applied, or incorporated, against the states through the 14th Amendment. By calling the Establishment Clause a "federalism provision," Thomas meant that the clause was added to the Constitution purely as a structural limit on federal action that should not also limit what the states may do. The clause "protects state establishments from federal interference," according to Thomas, "but does not protect any individual right."

I don't expect the Supreme Court to go that far if it ends up agreeing to hear this case. But other conservative justices have also raised their own complaints about modern Establishment Clause doctrine, which they see as too hostile to religious displays and observations by state officials, including by public school teachers and coaches. It's possible that such conservative judicial views may cut in favor of this particular law.

One thing seems clear enough: If the Supreme Court weighs in on the constitutionality of a state law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in every one of its public school classrooms, it will be the biggest separation-of-church-and-state case in years.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbat: Fake Stop

Damon Root is a senior editor at Reason and the author of A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution (Potomac Books). His next book, Emancipation War: The Fall of Slavery and the Coming of the Thirteenth Amendment (Potomac Books), will be published in June 2026.

Supreme CourtReligionFirst AmendmentConstitutionCivil LibertiesEducationTexas
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (3)

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.

  1. Vernon Depner   1 hour ago

    There is no religiously neutral way to display the Ten Commandments. Even dividing them into ten is a particular religious view—the text does not make it obvious there are ten. The choice of translation reflects a particular religious bias. Sorry, not appropriate.

  2. MollyGodiva   36 minutes ago

    Tell us again how Muslims are trying to install sharia law.

    1. Fu Manchu   9 minutes ago

      It's funny how insecure many Christians in the US are.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Texas Requires the Ten Commandments Be Posted in Every Classroom. SCOTUS May Decide If That's Constitutional.

Damon Root | 8.20.2026 7:00 AM

Brickbat: Fake Stop

Charles Oliver | 8.20.2026 4:00 AM

ICE Handed Over Specific Iranians at the Islamic Republic's Request

Matthew Petti | 8.19.2026 4:15 PM

Breakthrough Personalized mRNA Vaccines Are Highly Effective Against Melanoma Skin Cancers

Ronald Bailey | 8.19.2026 3:40 PM

Unionized Delivery Drivers Vs. Deliveries

Christian Britschgi | 8.19.2026 3:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason