District Court Issues Universal Injunction In Louisiana Ten Commandments Case

The court rules that "the Act cannot be enforced throughout the state."

Louisiana law requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. A group of Plaintiffs challenged the ordinance. These Plaintiffs are faith leaders, parents, and others who object to the display of the Ten Commandments on Establishment Clause grounds.

The District Court ruled that the posting of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional. I may address the First Amendment analysis elsewhere. Here, I'd like to focus on the scope of the court's remedy:

The Court has ruled that the Act is facially unconstitutional. That is, H.B. 71 is unconstitutional in all applications. As a result, the Act cannot be enforced throughout the state. While AG Defendants do not have to serve each school with a copy of this ruling, they certainly will be ordered to provide notice to all schools that the Act has been found unconstitutional, particularly since the burden on AG Defendants to accomplish this task is minimal.

Though this ruling only applies statewide, it is a universal injunction. It provides relief beyond the named plaintiffs, and their children. It applies to all schools in the state, even schools at which there were no objecting parents/plaintiffs. There is no certified class, so Rule 23 is out. Under Labrador v. Poe (see here and here), this universal injunction seems too broad. Relief should be targeted to those who are injured. This standard ought to apply in the state context, especially when it is a federal court granting relief.

This issue will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit shortly. Putting aside the merits question, the court may see fit to narrow the scope of relief.

Comments

[SimonP]

In today's post, Josh fluffs Ho, pretending to know something about the law.

[Randal]

Seriously! The core problem with universal injunctions isn’t that they extend beyond the plaintiffs, it’s that they extend beyond the reach of the district or circuit.

No one minds when the Supreme Court issues universal injunctions.

In fact, it would be dramatically anti-freedom to require every individual citizen to keep going to court all the time in order to vindicate their own rights against every random unconstitutional rule, order, or law.

[Bubba Jones]

If it’s facially unconstitutional, how can a universal injunction be too broad?

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my thought. I found this post rather puzzling.

[Ridgeway]

Puzzling is one word for it. This statute was requiring schools to post the 10 Cs. Even if the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable, that does not mean that schools cannot voluntarily post them. Doing so would obviously invite challenge as regards public schools, but private schools should remain hunky-dory. Consequently, the scope of the injunction seems trivial.

[Martinned2]

Because the plaintiffs only have standing with respect to their own injury, and if you're a purist it's only the plaintiffs' injury that the court has the power to remedy.

As I mention below, in a proper democracy that's a distinction without a difference, but in the US in the civil rights era this became a big problem.

[windycityattorney]

I thought an unconstitutional law was void *ab initio* so if the law required every school to post the commandments (i.e, to take some action) and now that law is void... the ruling (telling the AG to tell all the schools they don't have to take the action) would make logical sense.

[Martinned2]

The law is unenforceable, and it's always been unenforceable. As a result, any plaintiff with standing can ask the court to say that the law can't be enforced with respect to themselves. Whether the plaintiff can also ask the court to say that the unenforceable law can't be enforced against non-plaintiffs is a more difficult question.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Whether the plaintiff can also ask the court to say that the unenforceable law can’t be enforced against non-plaintiffs is a more difficult question.

That is a difficult question only in your imagination.

[Drewski]

"I thought an unconstitutional law was void *ab initio*"

Going off in the weeds a bit - there's no reason why this particular law shouldn't be void retroactively. But as a general rule: True for statutes that define a crime, true for regulations, otherwise only usually true. For example, courts have routinely shot down tax recovery claims from people who paid taxes voluntarily in satisfaction of an unconstitutional law. On the opposite side, if an unconstitutional law authorized a payment for work, sometimes the government can appropriate and disburse money for such.

There are no shortage of pithy quotes from courts claiming that voided laws must unwind the clock but when you get down to brass tacks pragmatism often wins.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Because the plaintiffs only have standing with respect to their own injury, and if you’re a purist it’s only the plaintiffs’ injury that the court has the power to remedy.

As usual, you're pontificating with absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. The court had the power to strike the statute down as unconstitutional and unenforceable...for everybody in the entire state...which is what it did.

[Martinned2]

That's just you assuming the conclusion. What is the source of that power? (Other than 60-70 years of Supreme Court case law, which is more than enough in my view. As my use of the word "purist" shows, my interest is in whether the Supreme Court got that right back in the day.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Like I said, you're pompously blathering based on nothing more than the delusion that you know what the hell you're talking about.

[Martinned2]

That's not really an answer to my question, is it?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It was a dumb question. Even "purists" recognize the courts' authority to adjudicate whether or not inferior law is in conflict with superior law,

[Martinned2]

Absolutely. The question is what the consequences of such a finding should be.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Absolutely. The question is what the consequences of such a finding should be.

"The question" changes every single time you post. Come back when you make up what passes for your mind.

[Drewski]

"What is the source of that power?"

The All-Writs Act, combined with judicial review and the Supremacy Clause.

[Martinned2]

That tells you why courts can make a finding that a law is unconstitutional. It doesn't tell you why courts can provide relief that doesn't affect the plaintiffs, e.g. by ordering the defendants in this case to do something in school districts other than where the plaintiffs' children go to school.

[John F. Carr]

We don't know if it is really unconstitutional until the appellate process is over. The Supreme Court could overrule precedent or the Fifth Circuit could distinguish precedent.

[Sarcastr0]

Facial, Josh.

Also, no one is actually injured since this case is tailored Supreme Court-bait.

[Benjac49]

Which version of the 10 Commandments is required to be posted? Does the teacher get to decided? The School Board?

[Bubba Jones]

Hebrew

[apedad]

"H.B. 71(B)(1). The Act also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments be used—a Protestant one contained in the King James Bible."

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ten-commandments-ruling-louisiana.pdf

Not even trying to be subtle.

[Drewski]

The Louisiana Statutory Version. Good Christians use the version of the Bible written by a government committee and lobbyists.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

So , Josh, will the 10 Commandments in the SCOTUS building come down ?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So , Josh, will the 10 Commandments in the SCOTUS building come down ?

Why would a LA district court’s ruling on a state requirement to display the 10 Commandments in LA schools result in such a display being taken down in the U.S. Supreme Court?

[SRG2]

Post-election, 5th Circuit has every "reason" to support the law, regardless of how obviously unconstitutional it is. Let's see whether they have the guts to reject the appeal.

[Absaroka]

I read Josh's linked previous article on Labrador v. Poe. But the justices there seemed to object that the issued injunction completely blocked a law, where the parties were only objecting to part of the law in question. I'm not sure how that applies here to a law with a single facially unconstitutional provision.

[Martinned2]

For the record, I am sympathetic to the idea that courts shouldn’t be able to order relief beyond the plaintiffs. But that comes with a parallel duty on the executive branch of government (state, federal, whatever) not to do things that are plainly unlawful.

The logic is basically the same as in the guidance on legal risk that the Attorney General of England & Wales published the other day, which I already mentioned in an open thread.

Sometimes a reasonable legal adviser might look at a court judgment where the government lost and take the view that it will be overturned on appeal, or that another court with a different plaintiff would be likely to take a different view. In that case I have no objection to the government only complying with the (narrow) order of the first court.

But in a case like this, if there was ever a “tenable” (to use the Attorney General’s word) argument that this is constitutional, there certainly isn’t now. So there is a duty on the executive branch of the state of Louisiana not to put up these ten commandments, and to take them down where they’ve already been put up, regardless of the exact scope of the remedy that the court imposed.

Of course, the fact that in the US the authorities don’t do that is exactly the reason why the federal courts, during the civil rights era, invented remedies like universal injunctions and other creativity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not to put up these ten commandments, and to take them down where they’ve already been put up"

In the US, school boards are the responsible entity in control of local schools, not state officials. That is why the order to the AG was to distribute notices to school districts, not go around ripping down the 10 commandments.

[Martinned2]

True, although the State Superintendent of Education, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the relevant school boards were also named defendants in the suit. Between them, that seems like it covers everyone who has any say in the matter. And more relevant to my point, it certainly seems enough to give all other public school boards notice that there is no tenable argument supporting the constitutionality of the law, triggering (if it wasn't triggered already) an obligation for them to obey the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

[Bob from Ohio]

"everyone who has any say in the matter"

Most school boards were not defendants. That is the whole purpose of the court ordering the notices.

[not guilty]

Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

I surmise that Rule 65(d)(2)(C) is why the District Court ordered (slip op., p. 177) that Defendants Brumley and BESE Members shall be responsible for providing notice of this order and H.B. 71’s unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions. If a rogue local superintendent or principal, after receiving such notice, nevertheless caused the Ten Commandments to be posted and was charged with civil contempt, he would be wise to bring his toothbrush to the courtroom.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So there is a duty on the executive branch of the state of Louisiana not to put up these ten commandments, and to take them down where they’ve already been put up, regardless of the exact scope of the remedy that the court imposed.

There is in fact no such duty on anyone's part.

[Martinned2]

There is, its just not articulated in this judgment, because the plaintiffs didn't seek any such remedy.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The voices in your head telling you that something exists does not make it so.

[Martinned2]

Fortunately, apart from the voices in my head, there is also the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Congress being prohibited from establishing a religion does not even remotely create an obligation by state and/or local executives to remove a 10 Commandments display put up by a public school.

Take your meds.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Whatever one’s views on universal injunctions in general, this seems right in the context of this particular claim. The right being violated is the right not to have an established government religion. Allowing the government to establish a religion in just part of the state wouldn’t afford these plaintiffs complete relief.

[wvattorney13]

This is nowhere near an establishment of religion. There is no official church in LA. The government is not the head of any church. This whole area of law has been confused by even suggesting that this is remotely like the Church of England.

[Martinned2]

Take it up with Hugo Black: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep333/usrep333203/usrep333203.pdf

[windycityattorney]

But there is an official version of the ten commandments the law said the schools they had to use. A specific one from the king james bible.

I think you are being a bit nit picky here.

[Absaroka]

"This is nowhere near an establishment of religion. There is no official church in LA."

If the law said 'Each classroom shall display some moral tenets from some religion or other flavor of ethical philosophy', I'd buy your point. What about a law that says 'each classroom shall post the Five Pillars of Islam'?

Where do you think the boundary lies?

[Roger S]

Schools already post the tenets of the Woke religion.

[Ed Grinberg]

Right! It is simply absurd that a public school can plaster BLM signs, the rainbow flag, and the woke catechism all over its walls, but is legally prohibited from putting up a copy of Ten Commandments.

[jb]

Take it up with the founders and their stupid 1st Amendment to the Constitution, I guess.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

...but is legally prohibited from putting up a copy of Ten Commandments.

The decision did not prohibit schools from displaying the Ten Commandments. It prohibited the state from requiring that schools do so.

[windycityattorney]

And what state laws mandate that every public school post BLM signs, the rainbow flag or a woke catechism? Please be specific.

Doing something voluntarily vs compulsory seems to be an important difference. Especially when the topic is religious in nature (or a specific religious text) in public schools funded by taxpayer funds.

Everybody who passed this knew what the result would be. They just hope to use this as a test case to get the law changed. In other words, they hope activist judges agree with them and rule according to what they think the law should be vs what the law is. Ya know, typical conservative bullshit they accuse the left of doing.

[Josh R]

I'm not seeing how the Establishment Clause analysis differs for a public school that voluntarily displays the Commandments versus a statute that requires all schools to do so.

There might be a Freedom of Speech, unconstitutional-condition case for the law applied to funding private schools.

[Randal]

In my heart I agree. But even the brief bit of the opinion posted above gives you one possible answer. It’s coercive, at least in part, because its prevalence and mandatory nature imbues it with extra weight. It’s official.

Some random teacher putting up a Ten Commandments poster doesn’t carry the same imprimatur.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which religion is "established" by the posting of the Ten Commandments, Judaism or Christianity?

[Martinned2]

Whichever one reads the King James Bible.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

H.B. 71(B)(1). The Act also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments be used—a Protestant one contained in the King James Bible. (See Expert Report of Steven K. Green, J.D.,
Ph.D. (“Green Report”) ¶¶ 50–51, Doc. 47-2.)

Which sects of Judaism rely on the King James Bible as their holy text?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The good ones?

[grb]

Thus the Nazi Child....

[Nelson]

“ Which religion is “established” by the posting of the Ten Commandments, Judaism or Christianity?”

Why do you think it matters? Both are religions, so neither should be in public schools, except for in comparative religion classes that point out the weaknesses and falsities of Christianity, in addition to its Commandments. Like the fact that most of them would be unconstitutional if made into laws.

[not guilty]

"Which religion is 'established' by the posting of the Ten Commandments, Judaism or Christianity?"

Both Judaism and Christianity regard the Ten Commandments as sacred scriptures, so how does that matter? Establishment of either, or both, is forbidden by the First Amendment.

That having been said, some plaintiffs in the Louisiana lawsuit objected to the statutory excision of some language which is in the book of Exodus, chapter 20, in the Torah. The District Court explained at page 18 of the slip opinion:

Specifically, Mr. Sernovitz and Ms. Pulda do not believe that the Ten Commandments are a universal benign ethical guide. The language of H.B. 71 omits key biblical text after the first commandment that, they believe, makes this clear: In the book of Exodus, chapter 20, in the Torah, the words “I am the Lord Your God” are followed by “who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This clause is an important part of their Jewish understanding of the origins and purpose of the Ten Commandments, and omission of this text denies the commandments’ specific meaning in their Jewish faith. This omission is, for Mr. Sernovitz and Ms. Pulda, tantamount to an official, governmental erasure of the Jewish significance of the Ten Commandments.

[Roger S]

Yes, it does not establish any religion. If anything, it promotes Judaism, as the Ten Commandments were Jewish law.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

<i.If anything, it promotes Judaism, as the Ten Commandments were Jewish law.

Requiring the display of a section of the King James Bible...specifically...seems like an odd way to promote Judaism.

H.B. 71(B)(1). The Act also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments be used—a Protestant one contained in the King James Bible. (See Expert Report of Steven K. Green, J.D.,
Ph.D. (“Green Report”) ¶¶ 50–51, Doc. 47-2.)

[Roger S]

Then I guess it does not promote any particular religion.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Then I guess it does not promote any particular religion.

Trying to argue that Christianity (even as specific as the subset of Christianity that recognizes the KJB as the inerrant word of God) is not "any particular religion" simply because it can be further divided into various sects is about as facile an argument as one could make here.

[Roger S]

Only a minority of Christians take the KJB literally. Of those who do, the Ten Commandments is from the Old Testament, and not really the Christian message.

[Nelson]

Your argument is that The Ten Commandments isn’t Christian? In what world?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Let me know if and when you figure out what your argument really is. So far you're all over the map.

[windycityattorney]

Some of the plaintiffs are Jewish and object to this version of the ten commandments because it edits out words and phrases contained in the Jewish version. For example, "I am the lord your god, who has taken you out of the land of Egypt." Guess what's not in the protestant version this statute requires be displayed in every single classroom of every single public school in the state?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Granting your dubious theological premise, so what? The government isn’t allowed to establish Judaism as a state religion either.

[Roger S]

I am pretty sure that Louisiana has not established Judaism as a state religion.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I am pretty sure that Louisiana has not established Judaism as a state religion.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was addressing your attempt to say that the law doesn’t establish a religion because what it promotes is Judaism (even though what it requires be posted comes from a Christian bible).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This is nowhere near an establishment of religion.

The government requiring that schools display to students a specific bit of text from a specific version of a specific religious work...especially one that purports to be a set of rules governing the behavior of all mankind by a single all-powerful deity...is clear proselytizing, which is pretty damned near to a state establishment of a religion.

[Bob from Ohio]

Still not an "establishment" which is when the state appoints and/or pays salary for clergy.

I realize the Supreme Court screwed this up from the get go but the Founding Fathers were well aware of what "establishment" was since several US states had "established" churches. Plus, of course the Church of England in Great Britain. "establishment" was a term of art but we warped it to mean "encouagement".

[Sarcastr0]

There was no 14A to incorporate the 1A against the states at that time.

How do you distinguish spending government money to encourage a particular Christian sect from establishing that sect as the state religion?

[Roger S]

The 14A has been ruled to incorporate the freedom of religion clause. It is not so clear that the establishment of religion clause has ever been incorporated.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is not so clear that the establishment of religion clause has ever been incorporated.

It's been clear to SCOTUS since at least 1947 via Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township.

[Bob from Ohio]

The 14A did not change the definition of "establishment'.

"encourage" is not "establish" despite our courts confusing the two.

Putting up a 10 commandment poster is not creating a state religion. There is a 10 Commandments relief/sculpture at the Supreme Court, did that establish a state religion?

[Commenter_XY]

It did not = There is a 10 Commandments relief/sculpture at the Supreme Court, did that establish a state religion?

[Randal]

There are many sculptures at the Supreme Court.

This would be a different case if classrooms were required to display the core tenants of a wide selection of major religions.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Still not an “establishment” which is when the state appoints and/or pays salary for clergy.

That is not even remotely the definition feature of establishment in this context. If the U.S. Congress enacted a statute declaring Roman Catholicism to be the official religion of the United States, and required the teaching of its tenets in all public schools...but did not use any taxpayer funds to support priests, churches, etc...are you claiming that would not be a violation of the Establishment clause?

[Roger S]

It is hard for Congress to require anything, unless it spends money to enforce it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is hard for Congress to require anything, unless it spends money to enforce it.

It can spend money enforcing what I described without paying any priests. I didn't think that was a difficult thing to understand.

[Nelson]

“ Still not an “establishment” which is when the state appoints and/or pays salary for clergy.”

Nonsense. If the government mandates a religious text be displayed in public buildings, it is clearly advocating for one version of religion over another (never mind ignoring the gold standard of religious neutrality).

In a perfect world, anything claiming there is a conscious God at all would be banned. But the government pretending Christianity is somehow better than every other mythology is well beyond the pale.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In a perfect world, anything claiming there is a conscious God at all would be banned.

That you think that sort of Orwellian crap is what would exist in a "perfect world" is more than reason enough to hope that you don't vote or ever reproduce.

[hobie]

So 'was', I take it that when the brown people take over, you'll be fine with the Koran in the face of your soon-to-be-misegenized white grandchildren? From what I see above, you approve of the dominant culture indoctrinating in their chosen religion

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So ‘was’, I take it that when the brown people take over, you’ll be fine with the Koran in the face of your soon-to-be-misegenized white grandchildren? From what I see above, you approve of the dominant culture indoctrinating in their chosen religion

It would appear that you're as illiterate as you are just generally stupid. Just about every post I've made in this thread (and there have been quite a few) has been to point out that the LA statute in question is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

[Nelson]

“ That you think that sort of Orwellian crap”

I am solely talking about government actions, as you well know. I never have and never will advocate for banning religion in society. That would be as unconstitutional as this law is, and completely indefensible from an individual liberty perspective.

Religion and government should never converge. Religious government is one of the most brutal and awful experiments in history and governmental religion is just as bad.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I am solely talking about government actions, as you well know.

What I well know is what you actually said, which contained no such qualifier, nor was any such thing implied...no matter what you want to claim after the fact.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As Prof. Blackman explicitly notes, he isn’t disputing that this law violates the establishment clause (in this post, anyway, I don’t doubt that he does think that): his complaint, such as it is, is about the remedy for the violation. If it helps, imagine that the law required schools to post “Islam is the official religion of Louisiana” or something similar.

[Commenter_XY]

Is Professor Blackman 'wrong' about narrowing the remedy?

[Noscitur a sociis]

In my opinion, yes.

First, Prof. Blackman cites two concurrences by Supreme Court justices, which are not binding precedent. The district court judge here wasn’t required to follow them.

Second, that case didn’t involve an establishment clause issue. So even accepting Prof. Blackman’s reading of the concurrences as accurately stating the law, the nature of an establishment clause violation may require exactly this kind of broad relief to remedy the individual plaintiffs’ harms.

[Commenter_XY]

It definitely feels like a step too far by LA. The mandate part is what bothers me. Would the law be 'Kosherized' (pun intended) if LA legislature had said 'You may post a copy of the 10 commandments' instead of 'You shall post a copy of the 10 commandments'?

I am thinking nope, can't kosherize this law, but have to ask the question. You never know.

Is Stone v Graham (referenced below by John F Carr)...are you familiar with it, is it really the closest case by SCOTUS on point?

[not guilty]

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), is the closest case by SCOTUS in the specific context of posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. In other contexts, the Supreme Court has upheld some governmental displays of the Commandments and rejected others.

The District Court here opined (p. 90) that "Stone does directly control this case, as its facts and reasoning are on all fours."

[Commenter_XY]

There is that saying!!! are on all fours! Woohoo! 🙂

You and Nas have been gr8 with that.

[wvattorney13]

Isn't this just a Cooper v. Aaron question? It seems that whether or not others are enjoined, they have to follow this decision anyways or risk Rule 11 sanctions fighting it in Court.

[Drewski]

Passing an official version of scripture as a statute is, indeed, the very essence of both establishing and endorsing a religion.

[Martinned2]

Since I now have the judgment open: Could anybody explain to me why the plaintiffs have to post a $100 bond now?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Maybe learn how to use the search feature of whatever PDF reader you're using. The word "bond" appears in the decision only 8 times, most of which are in the explanation for the bond order.

[Martinned2]

That's fair. (I got nine hits, but one of them is for "bondage".)

[santamonica811]

Wuz
(On the other hand; if you had chosen to post the answer to his question, then everyone else on this thread would also see the answer, thereby saving time in the aggregate. Yes, yes; I know. "Teach a man to fish..." etc.) 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

On the other hand, the purpose of my response wasn't the providing of easy answers to everyone who also couldn't be bothered to read what it is they're commenting on.

[wvattorney13]

Didn't SCOTUS overrule the so called "offended observer" standing? Or was that a concurrence? The Maryland cross statue case seemed to at least strongly imply that these sorts of cases will no longer be heard.

As such, I don't see how any plaintiff has standing as there is no injury. Having to look at the Ten Commandments does not break anyone's leg nor pick his pocket.

[windycityattorney]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25289875/roarke-brumley-stay.pdf

Pg 35 for standing analysis.

[Martinned2]

Plaintiffs rely on Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) to counter this point, but I'm not sure that the court really addresses it. I guess that means that it implicitly adopted the plaintiffs' analysis, i.e. that schoolchildren stuck in a classroom aren't really in the same position as any random observer who can just walk away.

[windycityattorney]

Yes because other LA statutes make school attendance compulsory to a certain age, the students themselves are a captive audience of sorts. Which also beggars the question why the LA statute required the commandments posted in EVERY classroom regardless of subject matter if they were hoping for some kind of plausible explanation that wasn't religiously motivated. You want to put one up in the history class? Okay I can see that. But math class? P.E.? Health class? Shop class (also known as industrial arts)? Art? Science?

They were not subtle about it. And in the legislature's hubris that lack of subtlety also helped make it all performative circus that was going nowhere but to judicial defeat.

But now those same legislators can say they are being repressed by the big fed govt judges in black robes and have many fundraisers and mailers go out to their 'flock.'

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, for one thing, even dedicated classrooms (science labs for instance) might be use for other subjects depending on condition in a particular school.

[windycityattorney]

I am just saying...the defense of the statute's constitutionality was the commandments historical relevance. So mandating putting them up in history class would make sense in that context and would have been a stronger argument for why the law didn't violate the 1st amendment. But the legislature didn't do that. They went overbroad mandating every public school at every grade level put one in every single class. So their 'defense' doesn't comport with the actual facts of what the statute does...so they lose credibility. Because at oral argument, they had to make their defense, such as it was, despite how ridiculous or stupid it would have sounded. "Its just about history, judge!" And its also to be in welding class, why? Umm... the history of welding is intimately tied to observance of the ten commandments??? Errr ummm... *cough* can we move on?

[wvattorney13]

It isn't mandatory to attend a public school. Parents may homeschool or send their kids to a private school that does not post the Ten Commandments.

That may be impractical, but it is no more impractical than not viewing a giant cross on my way to work alongside the public highway. I could quit my job, take the long way around, etc.

I think the whole gist of these cases is that you aren't really harmed by seeing a religious symbol so long as you are free to disregard it and worship (or not worship) as you choose.

[Randal]

That’s like saying you don’t have to attend the Church of England. Tardigrade.

[wvattorney13]

But you do have to use your tax money for tithes and payment of salaries. That is an establishment of religion, not the recognition that something tangentially related to religion is part of a common heritage.

IMHO, that is the flaw in the school prayer SCOTUS cases. They've stretched the meaning of "establishment of religion" beyond all meaningful recognition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Didn’t SCOTUS overrule the so called “offended observer” standing? Or was that a concurrence?

No and yes, respectively.

The Maryland cross statue case seemed to at least strongly imply that these sorts of cases will no longer be heard.

That case (American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n) held that the cross didn’t violate the establishment clause. The court’s opinion didn’t call into question the plaintiffs’ standing.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court has not overruled its case most on point, Stone v. Graham. The Louisiana politicians who put this law in place may be hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind. They should not have had any hope of winning in the trial court.

Maybe constitutional law is in a state where only offended parents of school children have standing to object to religious content. Precedent evolves that way sometimes. Compare Bivens, which was once broad and is now narrow.

[Krayt]

The SC will overturn it. Unlike the coach praying on the 50 yard line, there's no way to interpret it as individuals freely associating.

There might be a hook if one interprets it as the mandated Muslim prayer issue from a few years back, where "the other side" said it was just learning about religion, not practicing it.

They claim that here, too, as a cultural, historical thing. Maybe, if they are just facetious enough, maybe...

You asses on the left made this bed. Now lie in it.

[Nelson]

The only asses on any religious issue are the religious (usually conservative) ones. Why they can’t just stop trying to force everyone else to live by their beliefs is beyond me.

[wvattorney13]

That case relied on Lemon which has since been overruled. It is sort of like how lower courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage because subsequent cases had undermined a previous SCOTUS ruling directly on point.

[ReaderY]

I tend to agree that PRELIMINARY injunctions, prior to full adjudication of the merits, should be limited to the parties.

I am more skeptical of such limitations following final adjudication and judgment.

I agree, however, that injunctions should be limited to the court’s geographic jurisdiction. Louisiana has three federal districts, the Eastern, Middle, and Western. The injunction should have been limited to the Middle District.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why? If the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant and the injunction is necessary to grant plaintiff relief, why shouldn’t it be able to issue it?

Take the recent case against California’s blatantly unconstitutional prohibition on parody political ads. Why should the plaintiff have had to file four identical lawsuits to be protected from prosecution?

[David Nieporent]

I agree, however, that injunctions should be limited to the court’s geographic jurisdiction. Louisiana has three federal districts, the Eastern, Middle, and Western. The injunction should have been limited to the Middle District.

That's not how a federal judge's jurisdiction works.

[Ridgeway]

Nulla poena sine lege!
We don't pass laws saying what people can do, just what they cannot do.

The only thing holding public schools back from posting the 10 Commandments is about 60 years of supreme court precedent, which cannot be overruled by statute.

[Josh R]

On the merits, any lower court (*) should follow Stone v. Graham (it's on all fours). However since Stone relied on Lemon, which was discarded in Kennedy v. Bremerton, SCOTUS will take the case and reverse Stone. Gorsuch and company are itching to pare back the Establishment Clause to requiring coercion and will hold (6-3) hanging the Commandments do not coerce.

(*) Judge Ho will jump the gun, of course, if he is on the Circuit panel.

[Nelson]

That is a disturbing version of Christian Nationalist legal porn.

[CapitalistLionTamer]

So, it's a "universal" injunction because it blocks a state law *solely* in the particular state where it can be enforced? Go back to misinforming your students, Prof. Blackman. This is idiotic, even for you.