The first nine amendments to the Constitution are all about individual rights. It is the duty of every level of government to ensure that they are not violated.
The Tenth Amendment affects the role of States in areas not otherwise prohibited. This is an area of the law I am not as familiar with. However, this particular case involves the actions of one individual. His institution, the Supreme Court of Alabama, has overridden his action, so there is no state vs. federal issue. If the legislature and governor passed a law mandating Decalogue monuments in courthouses, that would be a different matter.
Speaking generally, the Federal government could certainly act tyrannically towards its citizens, almost everyone of whom is also a citizen of a state or district. I'm not sure how it could act tyrannically towards a state government, other than declaring war. Let's not turn this into a Civil War thread.
OK. I can steer clear of a direct states' rights argument while still advancing my case.
Sure, the federal judge cites the First Amendment as the pitiful justification for the wrongful decision to order the monument removed. Part of my aim must be to defend Judge Moore against this scurrilous charge.
However, it is also fair for me to make a direct case against what the federal judge Thompson did, the essential by what law? question. There is no requirement for me to cast that action as an individual rights infringement. Let me be clear: I do not accuse Thompson of infringing anyone's individual rights! And yet I adamantly protest his action.