An Arkansas law requiring Ten Commandments displays in all public-school classrooms is unconstitutional because its sole intent is to convert students to Christianity, a federal court has ruled.
“Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children. The state has said the quiet part out loud,” said U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks in Fayetteville in issuing a permanent injunction against the law.
Timothy Brooks
His March 16 ruling came in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, a lawsuit filed by 10 multi-faith and nonreligious families against Bentonville, Fayetteville, Springdale and Siloam Springs school districts. Brooks issued a preliminary injunction in the case in August, describing the legislation as “plainly unconstitutional.”
The permanent injunction applies directly to the districts named in the lawsuit, but all districts are legally obliged to comply with the order, said Amy Tai, senior litigation counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the organizations representing plaintiffs in the case.
“Implementing Act 573 would violate this obligation and could result in litigation being filed against school districts that do so,” Tai explained.
Amy Tai
Brooks’ order followed a federal appeals court ruling in February clearing the way for Louisiana to implement its Ten Commandments law as litigation against it continues.
That ruling by the full U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned a previous order by three of its members to block the law pending the ultimate outcome of Rev. Roake v. Brumley, a 2024 lawsuit filed by nine families with children in public schools.
Another case awaiting a decision from the same appellate court is Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a lawsuit filed against a Texas law mandating Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms in Texas.
In his order against the Arkansas statute, Brooks said the overtly religious intention of the state’s Ten Commandments legislation was made clear during legislative hearings on the law.
“One senator stated that the Act’s ‘valuable’ purpose was ‘for everyone (to be) reminded once a day that there is a God and we’re not him,” read one citation.
“Another senator opined that ‘educating our young people on the tenets of morality’ through the Ten Commandments was a necessary ‘counterattack … to that total secularization of Western society.’”
A state representative “celebrated that Act 573 would enable ‘a large number of students who don’t go to church’ to “‘at least have some exposure,’ to God’s commandments,” according to another citation.
“A fourth representative noted that reading and meditating on the Ten Commandments teaches children to appreciate the ‘virtues and qualities that we should all aspire to as Christians,’” while “a fifth representative wondered what all the fuss was about — since, in his mind, the Establishment Clause did not even apply to the states.”
Brooks added he was not persuaded by the state’s claims the Decalogue is a foundational part of U.S. and world history.
“There are no historical practices and understandings to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in the public-school context.”
“Discussing history is both unhelpful and irrelevant when the challenged law is coercive, applied universally in the public-school context, and has no educational, secular purpose. Even so, there are no historical practices and understandings to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in the public-school context.”
The permanent injunction also concurs with plaintiffs’ arguments that the law violates their freedom of speech and religion by forcing them to allow their children to undergo religious instruction contrary to their beliefs.
“Act 573 is subject to strict scrutiny because it is denominationally preferential and burdens parent-plaintiffs’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing. Accordingly, it is the state’s burden to demonstrate that its impositions on plaintiffs’ ‘protected rights serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to that end.’”
Plaintiff Samantha Stinson welcomed the ruling as an affirmation of her family’s right to religious freedom.
“The version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family’s Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials,” Stinson said.
“Today’s ruling is a resounding affirmation that public schools are not Sunday schools,” said John Williams, legal director for American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which also represents the plaintiffs.
“Arkansas lawmakers cannot sidestep the First Amendment by mandating that a particular version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom,” Williams said. “As the court recognized, this law served no educational purpose and instead placed the authority of the state behind a specific religious message.”
Related articles:
Is there a common source for the Ten Commandments bills?
Federal judge strikes down Texas Ten Commandments law
Ten Commandments displays blocked again by court order
Federal judge stops Arkansas from posting Ten Commandments in public schools