Texas’ Ten Commandments law may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court after an appellate court ruled it does not violate church-state separation under the U.S. Constitution.
A majority of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans cleared the way for the state to install commandments displays in public school classrooms after determining Senate Bill 10 has none of the characteristics of a government endorsement of religion.
“SB-10 looks nothing like a historical religious establishment. It does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis or imams,” according to the 110-page opinion. “It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason. It levies no taxes to support any clergy. It does not co-opt churches to perform civic functions.”
Ken Paxton
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision a victory for moral values.
“My office was proud to defend SB-10 and successfully ensure that the Ten Commandments will be displayed in classrooms across Texas,” he said. “The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”
Paxton is in the midst of a very public divorce from his wife, who has claimed infidelity on his part, and he has been the subject of ongoing allegations of criminal wrongdoing that led to his impeachment by the Texas House but acquittal by the Texas Senate with pressure from Donald Trump. He’s also currently a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
The April 21 decision stems from Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a lawsuit filed in July by 15 nonreligious and multifaith families with children in Texas public schools. The plaintiffs succeeded at the district court level in August when a judge determined the law to be “exclusionary and spiritually burdensome” on students and an infringement of the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause.
That is the way most court rulings on similar Ten Commandments laws have gone in the past.
Plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Louisiana, the Freedom from Religion Foundation with pro bono representation from Simpson Thacher and Bartlett.
This week’s ruling takes a different approach.
“We anticipate asking the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and uphold the religious-freedom rights of children and parents.”
“We are extremely disappointed in today’s decision. The court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority,” the groups said in a joint statement.
“The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights. We anticipate asking the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and uphold the religious-freedom rights of children and parents.”
The appellate ruling came on the heels of its February ruling to allow Louisiana to institute its law mandating Ten Commandments displays in public schools.
The Fifth Circuit decision said Rev. Roake v. Brumley was filed prematurely because without the installation of displays it was too early to determine if they actually cause harm to children.
But in the Texas case, the appellate court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that daily exposure to the displays will coerce students to revere the religious commands: “Not so. SB-10 requires no religious exercise or observance. Students are neither catechized on the Commandments nor taught to adopt them. Nor are teachers commanded to proselytize students who ask about the displays or contradict students who disagree with them.”
A dissenting opinion in the ruling warned the displays can, in fact, be coercive even if a formal acknowledgment or ritual observance of commandments is not required.
“To my eyes and ears, if a prayer heard but ignored can be coercive, then the posting of explicitly religious text in a place where it can be seen in every classroom is more coercive,” the dissenting judge explained. “Because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent until further indication, and SB-10 bears the same degree of coercive effect as the school prayer cases, I would hold that the school prayer cases resolve this case on coercion grounds.”
Holly Hollman
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty condemned the ruling for disregarding long-standing legal precedent and for narrowing the First Amendment to the extent of enabling government to meddle in religion.
“Compelling students to observe a government-mandated religious text undermines the very pluralism that religious freedom depends on. When the state mandates a religious text on every classroom, it is not just decorating a wall; it places the government’s weight behind one religious tradition at the expense of all others,” said Holly Hollman, chief legal counsel for BJC.
Other civil and religious liberty groups also weighed in against the court ruling.
“Let’s be clear: This is not about history or education — it’s about power,” said Steven Emmert, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “This ruling is part of a coordinated campaign to promote a Christian nationalist agenda and marginalize millions of Americans who don’t share those beliefs.”
Paul Raushenbush of Interfaith Alliance said simply, “Public schools are not Sunday schools.”
Related articles:
New class-action suit filed to stop Commandments in Texas
Ten Commandments displays blocked again by court order