A new Louisiana law mandating that public K-12 schools, colleges, and universities display the Ten Commandments in classrooms has created a constitutional debate regarding the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Attorney General Liz Murrill issued the law, which took effect on January 1, 2025. The law, originally House Bill 71, introduced by Rep. Dodie Horton (R-Haughton), is delayed in five K-12 school districts pending a class-action lawsuit filed by nine parents who argue that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by promoting state-sponsored religion.
The Establishment Clause, a key component of the First Amendment, is key in the controversy regarding the new law. The Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause ensures the government does not favor one religion or promote religious practices in public spaces, protecting the rights of those in the religious minorities. Opponents of the new Louisiana law argue that requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in state-funded educational institutions violates the Establishment Clause because of the government's potential endorsement of religions based on the Ten Commandments.
AG Liz Murrill’s law requires Schools to display one of four approved posters featuring the Ten Commandments in each classroom. To avoid the appearance of individual educators' endorsement of the Ten Commandments, the posters must not be placed behind teachers’ desks or podiums. Instead, they are encouraged to be integrated among other educational displays—including texts such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Mayflower Compact—to emphasize that they are part of a broader historical narrative.
In June 2024, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed H.B. 71 into law, mandating that every public school classroom display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments using an official, state-approved version. Critics, including plaintiffs from diverse religious backgrounds—Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious—argue that this statute violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, notably Stone v. Graham, which, over 40 years ago, invalidated a similar law by upholding the separation of church and state. They contend that mandating the display of a version of the Ten Commandments associated with Protestant beliefs impermissibly favors certain faiths, creating an unwelcoming and religiously coercive environment for students whose beliefs differ from the state's preferred scripture, and are therefore seeking both a declaratory judgment that H.B. 71 is unconstitutional and demands to prevent its enforcement.
The posters are to be between 11 by 14 inches and 18 by 24 inches and must be donated or privately funded. This requirement prevents the state from directly financially endorsing religious content. Despite these guidelines, the law has created controversy regarding the state's involvement in non-secular matters.
The opponents do not believe that the commandments should be displayed alongside other historical documents; they argue that it still sends a message that the state is upholding Judeo-Christian values over religious minorities. For these opponents, the law violates the foundational principle of separation between church and state. They argue that in a diverse society, public institutions must avoid any appearance of religious favoritism, ensuring that all students, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, feel included and respected.
Supporters of the law, including AG Murrill, argue that displaying the Ten Commandments is not an endorsement of religion but rather an acknowledgment of the historical and cultural roots that have helped shape American legal and ethical traditions. By mandating that the Commandments be displayed alongside the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence, the state aims to place these texts within the context of American history, showing them as part of a shared cultural heritage rather than a declaration of faith.
Murrill states, "H.B. 71 is constitutional because there are constitutionally sound ways to implement it.” Although the posters would not be state-funded, the opposing side argues that the mandate to display a specifically religious text in a public school violates the Establishment Clause.
I believe that the posters do not violate the Establishment Clause. The posters, placed in the context of historical documents, aid in educating children on the moral and ethical beliefs that shaped America. There is precedent for including non-secular ideas in public schools. For example, the Pledge of Allegiance, which is said in public schools, reads “One nation, under God”, displaying the innate link between religion and US history. If presented in the context of American history rather than the validity of the origin of the Ten Commandments, I believe that the posters do not violate the Establishment Clause.
This legal battle raises critical questions about the role of history and tradition in public education. Proponents of the law view the Ten Commandments as an essential part of Western legal tradition, as principles promoting ideas of justice and morality in the United States. For them, removing these texts would result in a lack of crucial historical context in classrooms.
On the other hand, opponents warn that state-mandated religious displays, even if framed as historical artifacts, risk alienating religious minorities. They fear that such displays may endorse one belief system while marginalizing others, thus violating the Establishment Clause and weakening the inclusivity of public education.
This debate highlights the balance of preserving cultural heritage and following constitutional principles. The Establishment Clause prevents any government action promoting religious doctrine over secular governance. Yet, it is also true that American history is steeped in religious influences, which have helped shape the nation’s legal and moral landscape. The law implemented in Louisiana attempts to find a balance similar to that of the Pledge of Allegence and combine the Ten Commandments with other foundational documents. However, whether this balance is sufficient to satisfy the issue of constitutional establishment remains to be seen. Ultimately, the challenge lies within the state’s commitment to remain neutral on religious matters and the role of religious ideas in the country’s development.
Sources:
8 comments:
I disagree. While the Ten Commandments have influenced history, requiring them in public school classrooms crosses the line into government endorsement of religion, which the First Amendment prohibits. The Supreme Court has already ruled against similar laws (Stone v. Graham), and just calling them “historical” doesn’t change their religious nature. Public schools include students of all backgrounds, and displaying a religious text could make some feel excluded or pressured to conform to beliefs they don’t share. Things like “In God We Trust” on money or “one nation under God” in the Pledge differ significantly from a state-mandated display of a religious code in every classroom because they don’t single out a specific doctrine. This also is not a mandated lesson kids are actively thinking about. This law seems unconstitutional because it prioritizes one religious tradition over others and undermines the neutrality that public schools should maintain. Instead of fostering inclusion, it risks creating division. Schools should focus on educating students about history and ethics in a way that respects all beliefs, without promoting any particular religion.
I also disagree. Having gone to a Catholic high school, we learned about the Ten Commandments regularly; it was clear that they had religious intentions behind their creation. The first 4 commandments deal specifically with religion, whereas the other 6 can be more neutrally/ broadly applied to society because they align more with the law. However, despite this, it is clear that some of them favor religious majorities over minorities. The first commandment, for example, which states that one should have no other gods before God Himself, applies to specific religions with one God and excludes those that idolize multiple gods; not neutral. By requiring them to be put in public school classrooms the government is, to an extent, establishing a religion, which is not neutral. As a loophole, the schools exclaim that the posters must be donated or privately funded, which would prevent the state from directly endorsing religious content. However, this does not negate the fact that the posters would be incorporated in schools that are funded by the state. By allowing the posters to be required in schools that they fund, the state would directly be endorsing the establishment of a religion.
While I respect your points Jack, I have to disagree. The commandments are critical pieces of Catholic indoctrination. Not all religions carry this same principal and set of morals, to have them in public schools would be a huge establishment issue under the First Amendment. Having one religion being advantaged in public schools would be a neutrality issue. With Catholics and Christians wanting to spread their religious beliefs and morals, it's hard to say that this is not advantaging their indoctrination of non-believers. While I agree they are a part of history, that is where the education should lie, in history classes that relate to this time in history. Having them posted on the wall would allow continued education daily of these morals and beliefs, and that would establish these ideals in the schools, again not neutral. With public schools being the home to so many diverse beliefs and morals, having one main set promoted gives the wrong idea and discriminates against these minority beliefs.
I disagree as well because it violates separation between church and state. When considering the lemon test, I think it mainly comes down to too much government entanglement with religion. Further, the children in some of the classrooms are young and impressionable, so having the commandments present in the classrooms can be indirectly coercive in my opinion.
I also disagree with your argument that these posters do not violate the Establishment Clause. While the Ten Commandments undeniably have have historical significance, mandating their display in public classrooms fundamentally undermines the Establishment Clause. Just because the posters are on the walls with other historical documents does not negate their religious nature. Public schools are supposed to remain neutral spaces that welcome students of all faiths and beliefs, and this law risks creating an environment of religious coercion.
I disagree with your conclusion, while the Ten Commandments may have played a role in the general moral development of our nation — that does not justify the privilege it gives to specifically Abrahamic faiths. While religion has been an integral component to the development and character of the country, we should not mandate any religion being privileged over the others.
I disagree with your opinion. The Ten Commandments have a clear and intentional religious connotation, and their inclusion in the classroom constitutes religious non-neutrality and the support of religion by a state actor. The suggestion that these ten commandments should be taught by the government is equivalent to suggesting that a religious text, such as the Quran, should be taught in public schools.
While I appreciate your response, Jack, I am not sure I agree. The lemon test, as Emma has referred to, strives to ensure that laws do not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. However historical the document may be, the Ten Commandments are deeply rooted in religion. In your response, you say, “They fear that such displays may endorse one belief system while marginalizing others, thus violating the Establishment Clause and weakening the inclusivity of public education.” In mandating government funded schools to display the Ten Commandments, there is not only the risk of excessive entanglement, but also the alienation of minority religions. Overall, I think this law violates the Establishment Clause and weakens the wall between Church and State.
Post a Comment