Texas and Louisiana took a stand Tuesday before the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to defend state laws mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This legal battle addresses fundamental questions about religious expression and government involvement in education. The hearing marks a pivotal moment in ongoing First Amendment disputes.
Texas and Louisiana defended the constitutionality of laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms at a Tuesday hearing before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while addressing challenges from parents and prior injunctions deeming the laws likely unconstitutional. This case consolidates arguments from two states facing similar legal opposition. The outcome could reshape Establishment Clause interpretations.
According to Courthouse News, Supporters contend these laws reflect historical values integral to American culture. Both states have enacted statutes compelling schools to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Groups of parents, representing themselves and their children, have challenged these measures, asserting a violation of their freedom of religion.
In Louisiana, a federal judge determined the law, set to begin on Jan. 1, 2025, is likely unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction to halt it. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld this block last year. Texas faced a similar outcome when a federal judge issued an injunction against several school districts following the law’s passage in June 2025.
The 5th Circuit heard consolidated oral arguments Tuesday on whether to sustain these injunctions. Past Supreme Court rulings provide context for the debate, including the 1980 Stone v. Graham decision that struck down a comparable Kentucky law under the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. That test demanded a secular purpose, neutral effect on religion, and no excessive government entanglement.
However, the Supreme Court abandoned the Lemon test in its 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District ruling, where a coach’s post-game prayers were deemed permissible. The court shifted to interpreting the establishment clause through historical practices and understandings. This pivot has fueled arguments over the current relevance of Stone v. Graham.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Jonathan Youngwood argued Tuesday that Stone remains valid law since it has not been explicitly overturned. Yet, U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, a Donald Trump appointee, questioned if the Supreme Court needed to list every Lemon-based case to invalidate them. Judge James Ho, also a Trump appointee, noted Stone relies solely on the now-defunct Lemon framework.
Texas and Louisiana solicitors general countered that Kennedy sets a new standard, requiring plaintiffs to prove government action mirrors historical hallmarks of religious establishment. Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga framed this test clearly. His perspective aligns with a return to foundational intent over modern progressive interpretations.
“Does this look like a government coercing somebody to attend church, punishing them for not attending church, the sorts of hallmarks that our founders understood when this country ratified the First Amendment?” Aguiñaga asked. While his argument roots itself in historical clarity, one must ponder if opponents fear a slippery slope where tradition overshadows individual choice in public spaces.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson challenged this view, probing the limits of such historical allowances. He questioned whether schools could escalate to daily readings of the Ten Commandments or even proselytizing. His concern highlights a tension between historical precedent and contemporary classroom dynamics under constant scrutiny.
After the hearing, plaintiffs at a virtual press conference expressed how these laws infringe on their religious freedoms. Reverend Jeff Sims, a Presbyterian minister and Louisiana plaintiff, shared his personal conflict with the mandate. His stance reflects a broader push against state-directed religious exposure.
Louisiana’s law requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom doesn’t just interfere with my and my children’s religious freedom, it tramples on it. Religious freedom in this country means that families get to decide if, when and how their children should be introduced to religious scripture, not the state.
Sims’ heartfelt plea resonates with many, yet it overlooks that displaying the Ten Commandments does not equate to forced worship or curriculum imposition. Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, judicial appointees have often prioritized originalist interpretations, suggesting a favorable tilt toward historical context over progressive anxieties. The law’s intent appears grounded in heritage, not coercion.
This case tests the balance between honoring America’s foundational values and safeguarding personal belief systems in public institutions. While plaintiffs argue for autonomy in religious education, supporters of the laws see them as a nod to moral principles that shaped the nation. Isn’t it ironic that the same First Amendment cited for protection once emerged from a deeply faith-influenced era?
