The case of Stinson v. Fayetteville School District addressed a Constitutional question regarding Arkansas Act 573, a law passed by the Arkansas legislature on April 15, 2025. Act 573 amends and expands Arkansas Code § 1-4-133 to require all public schools in the state to display the Ten Commandments. Each of the Ten Commandments displays is derived from the King James Version of the Protestant Bible. The Act states that the text must be “legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room” and be “prominently displayed” in a “conspicuous place” in every “elementary and secondary school library and classroom.” Additionally, the displays had to meet a minimum size requirement of 16 by 20 inches and must be donated or funded through private donations rather than public money.
Act 573 caught immediate attention due to the constitutional controversy. Shortly after its passing, parents from multiple Arkansas school districts challenged this act on First Amendment grounds. The Stitson family argued that the Act “is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights” and “The version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family’s Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials.” Other families of diverse religious backgrounds offered similar arguments against the constitutionality of Act 573.
On August 4, 2025, a District Court in Arkansas preliminarily enjoined four Arkansas school districts from complying with Arkansas Act 573. Act 573 went into effect statewide one day later on August 5, 2025. The Court decided in the injunction that the Act was likely to violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that “Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children.”
The primary question regarding the First Amendment is whether the Arkansas Act 573 violates the students' Free Exercise of religion as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause directly prohibits government sponsorship or promotion of any religion. The Court ruled in this case that requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom constitutes an impermissible endorsement. This was in part due to the displays not being presented as part of a broader educational or historical context; rather, they were mandated as stand-alone texts, prominently placed in classrooms where students would encounter them daily.
The Court's decision closely followed the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Stone v Graham (1980). In Stone v Graham, Kentucky mandated that all public-school classrooms display 16”x20” posters of the Ten Commandments, purchased entirely with private donations. Kentucky argued that the purpose of the displays was solely “secular and nonreligious.” The Court recognized the Ten Commandments as “a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths” and observed that they “do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness” but also set forth “the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.” The Court ruled that since Kentucky did not “integrate the Ten Commandments into the school curriculum,” posting them on the wall served no educational function. Moreover, the Court ruled that the fact that the displays were donated “did not matter” to the constitutional inquiry, nor did the fact that the displays were not “read aloud” to the students, as “the mere posting” of a religious text “under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the State Government that the Establishment Clause prohibits.”
Even after the decision issued in Stone, future cases have had differing rulings regarding the Ten Commandments. In 2005, the Court in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky affirmed a preliminary injunction that banned two counties from posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, citing that the counties had no educational, historical, or otherwise secular reason for posting the Commandments. On the same day, the Court issued an opinion in Van Orden v. Perry, ruling the display of a donated six-foot-tall stone monument of the Ten Commandments that had remained on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol for forty years without challenge was constitutionally permissible.
Overall, I agree with the District Court's decision in this case that the displaying of the Ten Commandments in schools violated the Establishment Clause as well as the students' Free Exercise Clause. My opinion is based largely on the decision in Stone v Graham that the Ten Commandments are inherently religious and serve no secular purpose if not paired with other school curriculum. By mandating the display of the Commandments, the government is directly promoting certain religions and has no clear secular purpose to do so. On the grounds of the Free Exercise Clause, I also believe that, since it is being introduced to children, the Ten Commandments can serve as a coercive device and impede the Free Exercise of the students.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/arwdce/5:2025cv05127/74528/71/
https://arkansasadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/20260316_Stinson-v-Fayetteville_-Order.pdf
6 comments:
I agree with your analysis of this case, and I liked how you emphasized the lack of a clear secular purpose. Even though the purpose claims to be about teaching history, this argument is weak because the Ten Commandments are displayed on their own. This case emphasizes the importance of effect and intent and how, in this case, it seems like the government would be promoting religion.
I agree with your analysis and I also think the Court correctly ruled in Stone v. Graham. Even if there was some secular text on the poster, primarily it is hard to make a case that putting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is for just secular and historical reasons. Plus, even if you acknowledge the secular history, can we not say that secular history has been influenced by religion, like Judaism and Christianity. In which case is this neutral?
I agree with your opinion entirely. We have heard this story in Stone v. Graham and I believe the Court ruled correctly. I hope in this case they do the same. Unfortunately, the Court could also rule like in Van Orden v. Perry. Regardless, I agree with your analysis of this case.
I agree with you here. Although one could argue that there is a secular purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments, it's impossible to dismiss it's inherently religious nature. This could lead to coercion since as a child, even if there were a primary secular purpose, it would be hard to seperate the document from it's origins
I agree with your analysis that Arkansas Act 573 is unconstitutional. Requiring the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed as stand-alone texts in every classroom serves a clearly religious purpose rather than an educational one. It makes the law appear as government endorsement of religion.
I would have to agree with your overall analysis in the case. I tend to take the same stances in most of these cases: display of any religious text in a government building (especially a school) is wholly unconstitutional. I think however, as mentioned in other comments, that the current Court would rule in favor of keeping the religious texts displayed.
Post a Comment