Louisiana's 10 Commandments law unconstitutional, appeals court says

AXIOS ^ | June 20, 2025 | Chelsea Brasted

[Racketeer]

Louisiana's law requiring the Ten Commandments be posted in all public school classrooms was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court Friday, according to the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case.

Why it matters: The decision brings clarity to state schools after a confusing year in which state leaders and the courts have issued conflicting guidance on whether educators must abide by the law while the lawsuit was being resolved.

The latest: A panel of three judges in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, widely considered one of the nation's most conservative, called the law "plainly unconstitutional."

The ruling upholds a lower court's November 2024 decision. What they said: Pointing to a similar Kentucky case, Stone v. Graham, the judges said the posters bearing the Ten Commandments as described in the Louisiana law "will cause an 'irreparable' deprivation of [the plaintiffs'] First Amendment rights."

The other side: Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill issued a statement Friday saying she "strongly" disagrees with the decision.

"We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court," she said.

[Racketeer]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so why is the Court?

The State of Louisiana mandated the Ten Commandments be posted into the schools, not Congress. Pretty obvious over the past half century what happens when they are not posted in the schools.

To believe mankind is the ultimate being universally is extremely arrogant and obnoxious. We could all use a major dose of humility.

[No name given]

My thoughts exactly.

[Regulator]

Even more hilarious is the fact that literally ALL the Founders would have said the Commandments were the basis of the legal system they created.

[Mark]

IF it is known that this document was in the offices of the founding fathers, then what?

[tumblindice]

Yes, the Ten Commandments are depicted in various forms at the Supreme Court (of the US) building, including sculptures and engravings, although there is debate about whether these representations are purely religious or also have historical significance. Some argue that the tablets depicted may represent the Bill of Rights instead of the Ten Commandments.
Nobody but the SCOTUS can display the 10 Commandments, because We Say So.

[DJ MacWoW]

Apparently these jokers have never heard about Robert Aikens Bible being approved and recommended by congress. I think it was around 1782...I’d have to look it up.

[Angelino97]

Even more hilarious is the fact that literally ALL the Founders would have said the Commandments were the basis of the legal system they created.

Literally ALL of them?

I doubt that. I'm sure many respected the Bible, but Roman Law was also an inspiration for the Constitution. And some were deists who might have had little respect for the Bible.

[kiryandil]

Before Dennis [Clinton stooge], Haynes [Dubya stooge], and Ramirez [Biden stooge], Circuit Judges.

A trio of Lefty stooges.

[kiryandil]

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4324364/posts?page=8#8

[Leaning Right]

This is a tough, tough call.

I’m old enough to remember when nondenominational prayers were allowed in public schools. I still fondly recall the brief prayer sessions my teachers held before our lunchtime.

And the Ten Commandments are certainly very wise rules to live by. But if they are allowed, why couldn’t a Muslim teacher post some Shariah Law crap?

Ugh. Tough call. With great hesitation, I would have to say that the state of Louisiana has gone too far here.

[Racketeer]

The US Congress did not tell Louisiana what to do here. The 10th amendment specifies that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.

Please, please, I beg anyone to show me where the power of a state to place the Ten Commandments into school classrooms is forbidden to the states by the US Constitution.

They overturned Roe V. Wade and proclaimed it is an individual state decision. I see it happening here as well.

[odawg]

It reads, Congress shall pass no law...”

A state legislature is not Congress. The reason why the amendment says “Congress” is that three fourths of the states who placed the amendment had state established religions and they did not want competition from the Federal government.

[Racketeer]

“But if they are allowed, why couldn’t a Muslim teacher post some Shariah Law crap?”

Which is why you leave it to the individual states. All politics is local. If a state wants to mandate citizens to hear the call to prayer or recite sharia law, so be it. The citizens can respond very quickly at the voting booth or move to another state.

I believe Louisiana only required the Ten Commandments to be posted. From what I hear, if it had been anything else, the politicians would quickly be flogged, drawn, then quartered!!

[tumblindice]

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) Docket No. 03-1500 Granted: October 12, 2004 Argued: March 2, 2005 Decided: June 27, 2005 Annotation Primary Holding The Establishment Clause does not prohibit per se all forms of government action that may have religious content or a religious message. Read More Syllabus SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 03–1500.Argued March 2, 2005—Decided June 27, 2005 Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates that, after accepting the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eagles—a national social, civic, and patriotic organization—the State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encounters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monument’s placement violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and an injunction requiring its removal. Holding that the monument did not contravene the Clause, the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 351 F. 3d 173, affirmed. The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history, see School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 212–213, with the principle that governmental intervention in religious matters can itself endanger religious freedom requires that the Court neither abdicate its responsibility to maintain a division between church and state nor evince a hostility to religion, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313–314. While the Court has sometimes pointed to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, for the governing test, Lemon is not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected on its capitol grounds. Instead, the analysis should be driven by both the monument’s nature and the Nation’s history. From at least 1789, there has been an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of religion’s role in American life. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 674. Texas’ display of the Commandments on government property is typical of such acknowledgments. Representations of the Commandments appear throughout this Court and its grounds, as well as the Nation’s Capital. Moreover, the Court’s opinions, like its building, have recognized the role the Decalogue plays in America’s heritage. See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 442, 462. While the Commandments are religious, they have an undeniable historical meaning. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 680, 687. There are, of course, limits to the government’s display of religious messages or symbols. For example, this Court held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public schoolroom. Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 41–42. However, neither Stone itself nor subsequent opinions have indicated that Stone’s holding would extend beyond the context of public schools to a legislative chamber, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, or to capitol grounds. Texas’ placement of the Commandments monument on its capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students every day. Indeed, petitioner here apparently walked by the monument for years before bringing this suit. Schempp, supra, and Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, distinguished. Texas has treated her capitol grounds monuments as representing several strands in the State’s political and legal history. The inclusion of the Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government, that cannot be said to violate the Establishment Clause. Pp. 3–12. Justice Breyer concluded that this is a difficult borderline case where none of the Court’s various tests for evaluating Establishment Clause questions can substitute for the exercise of legal judgment. See, e.g., School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 305 (Goldberg, J., concurring). That judgment is not a personal judgment. Rather, as in all constitutional cases, it must reflect and remain faithful to the underlying purposes of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses—to assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all, to avoid the religious divisiveness that promotes social conflict, and to maintain the separation of church and state. No exact formula can dictate a resolution to fact-intensive cases such as this. Despite the Commandments’ religious message, an inquiry into the context in which the text of the Commandments is used demonstrates that the Commandments also convey a secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law. The circumstances surrounding the monument’s placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the Commandments’ text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message. The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument’s presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged (until the single legal objection raised by petitioner). Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their belief systems, are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort to establish religion. See ibid. The public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage. For these reasons, the Texas display falls on the permissible side of the constitutional line. Pp. 1–8. Rehnquist, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Read More Opinions Opinion (Rehnquist) Concurrence (Scalia) Concurrence (Thomas) Concurrence (Breyer) Dissent (Stevens) Dissent (O’Connor) Dissent (Souter) Hear Opinion Announcement - June 27, 2005 OPINION OF REHNQUIST, C. J. VAN ORDEN V. PERRY 545 U. S. ____ (2005) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 03-1500 THOMAS VAN ORDEN, PETITIONER v. RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit [June 27, 2005] Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join. "The question here is whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. We hold that it does." I don't know how the Roberts court managed to square this circle.

[Leaning Right]

Permit me to state my reluctant objection another way.

I send my child to a public school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic (and a little science, too). I do not want my child to be subject to any political or religious indoctrination. Such things should be the purview of the parents, exclusively.

That is, I think, a conservative stance.

But there is a good compromise. Restate the Ten Commandments in a nondenominational form. As I said before, they contain great wisdom.

Do not steal. Do not lie, etc. Post that.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Restate the Ten Commandments in a nondenominational form.

Yeah, I never could figure out why Moses spoke Olde English.

[VAFreedom]

AND it doesn’t even do any good when people have trouble keeping 3 of the 10... heck, if they made gambling illegal in the bible......

[tumblindice]

Do not lie, steal, murder, etc.
That’s all they say. There is no “indoctrination”.
Those concerned about establishment are straining at gnats while swallowing camels: “Posting categorical imperatives, gee I dunno. But kultursmog thst surrounds our children, yeah, that’s OK.
There’s nothing conservative about that egg-sucking.

[Racketeer]

It is not required to be read, just posted. If a child is curious the child will ask the parent.

[Leaning Right]

> There is no “indoctrination”. <

You are mostly correct. But take a look at the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3). I agree with it. But yeah, it’s religious indoctrination.

As is the Commandment to keep the Sabbath.