Bible Battles in Oklahoma: Why Walters’ Plan Violates the First Amendment

     In October 2024, the lawsuit Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters was filed on behalf of many Oklahoma families, teachers, and faith leaders to block Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials to integrate into public school education. Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court temporarily blocked any attempt to buy Bibles and Bible-based instructional materials, in addition to Waltersn dropping the Bible-buying plan after pushback from the legislature. 

    However, the same day Walters dropped the plan to buy Bibles, Walters announced a Bibles Back in School Campaign, which functions as an indirect purchasing scheme to integrate the Bible into the classroom. This campaign asks people to buy President Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bibles” through a special website. The Bibles purchased are automatically donated to the OSDE, run by Walters, to be then distributed to the Oklahoma public schools. 

    In the most recent filing by the plaintiffs, they ask the court to issue an order prohibiting state officials from taking any action to implement the Bibles Back to School Camplagn and distributing bibles to public schools, ultimately trying to stop Walters’ latest action from getting bibles in public school classrooms. 

    Are Walters’ and the OSDE’s attempts and actions, including direct purchasing of Bibles for the classroom and the Bibles Back to School Camplagn, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? I say absolutely yes. 

    I draw on McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Stone v. Graham (1980) to come to this conclusion.

 McCollum held that a program that allowed the use of public school classrooms for religious classes constituted the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between school authorities and the religious council, and thus is in violation of the Establishment Clause. This case sets a reinforced precedent of a strict separation of church and state, which works against Walters and the OSDE's push to get Bibles in the classroom. Just as McCollum struck down religious instruction in public schools, placing Bibles in classrooms—even if they are not required reading—sends an implicit government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause.

    The Stone case involved a number of parents who challenged Kentucky state statute that required posting a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public classroom and filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. These copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private contributions. This case is eerily similar to the issue present in Oklahoma today. In Stone, the majority held that the Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the Consitution, stating that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms has no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature, despite its historical relevance. 

    In reaction to the lawsuit, Walters states, “It is not possible for our students to understand American history and culture without understanding the Biblical principles from which they came”. However, the outcome of Stone explicitly rejects this defense, as it set the precedent that the government cannot use public schools to promote religion/religious texts, even if they can be considered historically or morally significant. 

    Additionally, it can be argued that mandated Bibles are more religious than the Ten Commandments, meaning if posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional, placing Bibles in the classroom is even more so. 

    Furthermore, even if the Bibles are not a mandatory reading, they still send a religious message. The Kentucky Law did not require students to engage with the Ten Commandments, yet it was still struck down in part because of the message it could send. Likewise, just having Bibles in classrooms sends a government-sponsored religious message.

    In addition to drawing on precedents set by McCollum and Stone, I have used the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine whether the actions of Oklahoma Superintendent Walters and the OSDE violate the Establishment Clause. Although the Lemon Test was recently abandoned in the outcome of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), I still find the Lemon Test to be a useful tool to evaluate the actions of Walters and the OSDE. The Lemon Test states that for a government action to be constitutional, it must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Walters and the OSDE’s actions to put Bibles in public schools ultimately fails the Lemon Test. The primary intent of these actions is to promote religious values, has the primary effect of advancing Christianity, and the actions excessively intertwine the government with religion. Thus, the action of Walters and the OSDE violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

    The actions of Walters and the OSDE doesn't just use state-funded resources to support religion; it favors one religion over others. The version of the Bible Walters wants to put in the classroom, the “God Bless the USA Bibles”, is a Protestant version of the Bible. As I mentioned before, simply having the Bible in the classroom constitutes a government-sponsored religious message which the Supreme Court has consistently ruled unconstitutional. By selecting a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters and the OSDE are not only endorsing Christianity but also favoring one Christian denomination over others, exacerbating the Establishment Clause violation. It sends a clear message that Protestant Christianity is the preferred or endorsed religion in Oklahoma public schools.

    In conclusion, Walters’ and the OSDE’s actions to integrate Bibles into public schools, whether through direct purchases or the Bibles Back to School Campaign, clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. McCollum and Stone set strong precedents against using public schools to promote religious texts, and even under the Lemon Test, these actions fail constitutional scrutiny. By favoring a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters is not only promoting religion but also favoring one denomination, further deepening the constitutional violation. Ultimately, this initiative is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion and should be struck down.

Sources:

https://www.au.org/the-latest/press/oklahomans-urge-supreme-court-stop-ryan-walters/

https://www.news9.com/story/671134636b0f12d4031e328a/okla-families-teachers--faith-leaders-file-lawsuit-against-ryan-walters-bible-education-mandate

https://ministrywatch.com/ok-legislative-turndown-sparks-fundraising-campaign-for-school-bibles/

Legal Battle Over Pronouns in Virginia Schools

In a recent case title Peter Vlaming v. West Point School Board, actions of a former teacher named Peter Vlaming sparked a debate between himself and the school board. The conflict ultimately raised attention around the country to the debate over religious freedom and gender identity in public schools. Back in 2018, Vlaming was laid off for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns. Fast forward to October 2024, the school board agreed to pay him $575,000 due to damages and attorneys’ fees. This case raises extremely pressing questions about teachers’ rights, and how far schools can go in enforcing personal belief in a public education setting.

Peter Vlaming was a French teacher at West Point High School for six years. When one of his students decided to identify as male, Vlaming began to use the student’s name as opposed to pronouns all around. However, he did not feel comfortable using male pronouns like he/him because it went against his Christian beliefs. Instead, he made an effort to avoid using pronouns. After this attempt to find a middle ground, when school officials got wind of this, he was told to use the preferred pronouns or face consequences. When Vlaming ultimately refused to comply, he was fired.

Vlaming retaliated with a strong argument: that he wasn’t fired for anything he said or did, but rather for something he couldn’t say due to religious beliefs. It is clear that he wasn’t being disrespectful toward the student, he was simply trying to stay true to his beliefs while still treating the student with respect. Additionally, sincerity should not be in question here. Vlaming was not attempting to harm a student or create a hostile environment. Yet, he was punished for his refusal to say something that he fundamentally did not believe.

Recently, in December, the Virginia Supreme Court acknowledged that the case deserved a closer look. They reopened his lawsuit, stating that Virginia’s Constitution provides individuals protection for both free speech and religious freedom. One justice argued a key idea, that the government can’t force people to say things that go against their deeply held religious beliefs, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This is central to this case, raising the question of whether the government can truly force a teacher to say something they do not believe in.

This situation shares similarities to previous free speech cases. A famous 1943 decision, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, ruled that students may not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they did not choose to. The Court argued that no government official has the right to force people to embrace any official opinion. This principle should still be upheld today.

Many argue that Vlaming’s actions were discriminatory and made the student feel unsafe. However,

Devil’s Advocate: Should The Satanic Temple Get a Spot in School?

In 2019, the Saucon Valley School District in Pennsylvania allowed a local chapter of the Good News Club, an evangelical Christian organization, to hold after-school meetings at one of its elementary schools. This Christian group’s meetings, which promote religious teachings to children, have been allowed in public schools across the United States in the past. However, when The Satanic Temple, a non-theistic religious group, requested permission to also hold after-school meetings, the school district denied the request. The Satanic Temple claimed that its beliefs were being discriminated against, as the district had allowed another religious group to meet on school grounds. The group contended that this violated the Equal Access Act, which ensures that religious groups have the same rights as other student groups to access public school facilities for extracurricular activities, so long as those activities do not disrupt the educational environment. The district argued that The Satanic Temple was not an official religious organization in the same vein as more traditional religious groups and that allowing the group to meet on school property would lead to disruption, controversy, or backlash from the community. The case raised a crucial issue: does the refusal to grant access to The Satanic Temple violate the religious equal access principle protected by the Constitution?

At the core of this case is a debate surrounding the balance between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice their religion freely, while the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religious group over another. The Satanic Temple argued that the school district’s refusal to allow them access to its facilities violated the Free Exercise Clause because it was denying them equal treatment based on their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the district’s concern about potential disruption points to the Establishment Clause, which seeks to prevent the government from endorsing or favoring any particular religion. The question, then, is whether allowing The Satanic Temple to use public school facilities would be considered an endorsement of their beliefs, thereby violating the separation of church and state, or if denying them access would constitute discrimination and a violation of their right to religious freedom. This case highlights the tension between the two important constitutional principles of religious equality and the separation of church and state. This creates an unequal situation where one religious group is granted access while another is not because of the nature of its beliefs.If The Satanic Temple prevails, it will send a message that public institutions must treat all religious groups equally, regardless of how controversial or unconventional their beliefs may be. Conversely, if the district’s actions are upheld, it could set a dangerous precedent where religious discrimination based on the perceived popularity or acceptability of beliefs becomes normalized in public schools. 

This case also underscores a broader issue in the interpretation of religious freedom the ongoing struggle to apply constitutional principles to new and diverse religious movements. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, it doesn’t provide a clear roadmap for how to deal with fringe or unconventional belief systems. A relevant precedent is Reynolds v. United States (1878), which involved the prosecution of polygamy in the context of religious practices. Although the Court ruled that certain practices (such as polygamy) could be prohibited under the government’s interest in regulating social order, it simultaneously affirmed that religious beliefs themselves are protected by the First Amendment, even if practices stemming from those beliefs might be limited. This case provides some insight into the broader scope of how the Court has balanced religious freedom with societal interests. Moreover, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which reinforced the principle of religious freedom in public spaces, established that religious groups cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs when seeking to practice freely. This case, in particular, highlights the importance of treating all religious groups equally, which could be crucial for interpreting the situation of The Satanic Temple.

In my opinion, The Satanic Temple should be granted the same rights as any other religious group under the Equal Access Act. While I understand the district’s concerns about community backlash, the principle of religious equality is paramount. Allowing the Good News Club to meet while denying access to The Satanic Temple is a clear violation of religious freedom. We shouldn’t have a system where the government discriminates against certain belief systems simply because they are unpopular. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom for all, and public schools should serve as a model of how we can respect that diversity without favoring one religion over another.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/news/2024-recap-after-school-satan-club?srsltid=AfmBOorjCD4hDkzmGlNNRC6FW9tdw_fdW7IDKi3driPPR23Z4whjNQSU
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/pennsylvania-school-district-agrees-to-pay-200000-after-discriminatory-decision-to-block-after-school-satan-club-from-school-facilities

Hijabs and Handcuffs

 On August 14, 2024, Zarmeen Azam and Shajnin Howlader were violently assaulted by NYPD officers while they peacefully protested. The women were strangled, and their hijabs were forcibly removed. The incident occurred when a large group fundraiser transitioned to a new location and encountered resistance from the NYPD. After surrounding the group, the officers began to exhibit disturbing levels of aggression towards the hijabi women, shoving them to corral and intimidate the group. During this confrontation, Sergeant Joseph Spalding seized Shajnin’s hijab and pulled it sharply, causing it to obstruct her breathing by tightening around her neck. While this was happening, Assistant Chief Stephenson put Azam in a chokehold, restricting her breathing and forcibly tearing off her hijab. The officer then completed the arrest only after dragging her on the ground while assaulting other protesters. At the precinct, Ms. Azam was denied the opportunity to adjust her hijab when an officer threw part of it onto her face, exposing her hair. Later, after being uncuffed, her hijab was damaged and failed to conceal her hair correctly. Throughout this time, Axam pleaded with the officers to allow her to modify her attire per her religious beliefs. These are just two instances in which police threaten to remove the hijab as a means of intimidation and crowd control, reflecting an increase in such occurrences across New York City. These women and others are suing the NYPD and specific officers for hindering their free exercise of religion. The complaint claims that forcibly removing the plaintiffs’ hijabs in public significantly burdened their religious practice, as wearing a hijab is a sincerely held religious belief and a necessary part of their faith.

The question at hand is whether it is unconstitutional for these police officers to damage and tarnish religious garments while making arrests. Azam and Howlader argue that this violates their right to free exercise. The recent Supreme Court case Holt v. Hobbs (2015) establishes a precedent relevant to this situation. Essentially, the Court ruled that an Arkansas prison policy prohibiting a Muslim inmate from growing a beard violated the Free Exercise Clause. This case confirms that compelling individuals to breach their sincerely held religious beliefs is unconstitutional unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and employs the least restrictive means.

Another case with an interesting precedent is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the key holding was that government actions demonstrating hostility toward religious beliefs violate the Free Exercise Clause. Abusing one’s attachment to their religious sacraments in the manner that NYPD did during the protest feels like a similar abuse to the one suffered by Masterpiece Cakeshop where a governing body restricts the free exercise of religion.

Interestingly, this case presents a significant dilemma regarding the free exercise clause. The clause states that the free exercise of religion may be restricted if there is a compelling state interest. One could argue that the police believe limiting these women’s free exercise is necessary due to the nature of the protest. Should a police officer have deemed it essential to use such force and tactics to maintain peace and order while serving a compelling state interest? Even if someone believes that the officer's actions were entirely wrong, what protest threshold should allow a police officer to engage in the actions that occurred that day? These monumental questions highlight the importance of this case for the future of the free exercise clause because if state-funded law enforcement can determine any moment when violence is necessary, it seems unconstitutional for officers to restrict free exercise in this manner. My concern is, who’s to say they can’t consider all instances of religious protest as chances to limit freedoms? The NYPD's violence against Azam and Howlader reveals a misuse of force. It raises constitutional concerns regarding religious freedoms, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to respect these liberties and be held accountable for violations. Moreover, I believe it aligns with earlier precedents where the wellbeing of individuals isn’t harmed if someone is accommodated to fit their religious freedoms. Officers should be trained to make arrests without violating rights. For these reasons, I agree with Azam and Howlader: given the chaos caused by the NYPD officers, they should have accommodated the religious liberties of those they arrested. Even before that, they should have approached the situation with caution and not used hijabs as a means of attack.

Citations:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-6827

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/federal-civil-rights-lawsuit-filed-on-behalf-of-cair-ny-protesters-assaulted-by-nypd-officers/

Is Intrusive Questioning Unconstitutional?

    In 2022, three Muslim Americans filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about intrusive questioning about their religious beliefs and practices. The plaintiffs claim that biases during questioning is illegal. Three Muslim men were questioned with personal and unecesarry questions like “how many times a day do you pray?” and “do you attend a mosque?” The plaintiffs argue that this among many other biases seen during border control and U.S. customs stops demonstrates clear racial and religious bias against Muslims while other people will not even be asked any similar kinds of questions. The plaintiffs claim that they have been targeted multiple times with these types of questions and have been profiled based on their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs main argument is that this religious bias is a clear violation of their first amendment right to exercise free religion. The three Muslim Americans do not see this as an issue with just them, but as a larger issue about these agencies targeting Muslims and people they mistake to be Muslim at ports of entry.

    Many groups are in support of this lawsuit. Some of these groups are Americans United, along with Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Interfaith Alliance, National Conference of Jewish Women, and Unitarian Universalist Association. All of these groups came together to support this lawsuit and help fund the legal fees. The District Court rejected the claims that the plaintiffs made, but now, as of 2024 the case is filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

    A Supreme Court Case that could be used as a precedent to this one is Tanzin v. Tanvir. In that case, the plaintiffs sued because they were placed on a no-fly list due to their refusal to inform on their religious communities. The court ruled that authorities violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and therefore declared that this was a violation of the First Amendment. This could be seen as a precedent for Kariye v. Mayorkas due to a federal agency placing a burden on citizens because of their religious beliefs. 

    The primary constitutional issue at question in this case is: Is the practice of intrusive questioning and targeted questioning placing a burden on citizens’ religious beliefs? I would argue that yes it is. This line of questioning is clearly targeted at Muslims, probably due to the islamophobia problem that government agencies have had ever since 9/11. This is something that I have witnessed first hand as I was traveling with one of my friends. A federal agency should be neutral, and only forcing this line of questioning on certain people because of a preconceived notion that the government agent has, is clearly not neutral. This places a burden on people with certain religious beliefs, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment. I do not see how this would be a slippery slope, but am very open to hearing any arguments. To support the constitution, means to support and respect the rights granted to everyone under it. If a federal agency is failing to do so, how can we trust that our other rights will be protected?

Sources:

https://muslimadvocates.org/court-case/kariye-v-mayorkas/

https://www.aclu.org/cases/kariye-v-mayorkas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf

The Sincerity of Psilocybin Use in Utah’s Religious Practices... What’s Protected?

 Singularism, a religious sect located in Utah, established that the government has interfered with their religious exercise. Singularism practices their religion with the use of psilocybin as a sacred worship. They are a small religious group based in Provo, Utah, known for their peaceful community. Members of secularism have claimed that government authorities harassed their faith. The members asserted that police suddenly searched the spiritual center and interrogated SIngularism's founder. The police proceeded to seize Singularism's sacramental psilocybin (Jensen). Singularism members argue that these actions contrast their use of sincere and non-threatening religious practices, as the use of psilocybin is used according to religious sincerity protocols. Days following, law enforcement served a letter to the landlord of Singularism's center landlord, notifying the need to evict Singularism, or the government would exercise civil forfeiture proceedings.

On February 20, 2025, a Utah federal district issued a preliminary injunction under Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is the first lawsuit under the Act and has become a federal case intended to challenge government overreach. The plaintiffs are asking the Court to order the state of Utah from enforcing the Utah Controlled Substances Act that prevents Singularism from using Psilocybin. Plaintiffs argue that the Act burdens their free exercise right. Their members use psilocybin to help them embark on a spiritual journey to discover truths. Members explained how they approached local enforcement before their center was searched. Singularism sent a standing invitation to "local government to engage in dialogue and to tour its spiritual center a year before" (Jensen). However, the local government never followed up. Instead, law enforcement chose to enter the center without notice and never issued an arrest but stated to the religion's founder that they should expect criminal charges. These actions demonstrate local authorities' discrimination against minority religions by disregarding the opportunity to learn about the group's practices. 

The defendants argue the sincerity of Singularism practices. Notably, the defendants looked at Singularim's claims. Including the Singularism faith, which "does not claim special access to divine truths." Due to the lack of answers to important questions in religion, they seek falsity in their religion. The defendants insisted that their practices help with discovery instead of being a formal religion, therefore challenging the sincerity of the faith.  These practices argued show Singularism's lack of answers to religious questions, weakening its claim to be a religion.  

The case ultimately challenges Singularism free exercise but also challenges state interest, as the Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibits use of psilocybin. While it may be challenging to determine what qualifies the sincerity of religion, it is unfair to prevent the practices of groups based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'true' religion. The United States v. Ballard case (1944) illustrates a similar point, as the court ruled whether they could validate "the truth or falsity of religious views." While it may be challenging to believe or find the religion credible, it is not the decision of the Court. The Court ruled in favor of Ballard, acknowledging that the government has to respect individuals' choices to practice their faith. 

Similarly, while others may be skeptical of Singularism's use of psilocybin, the Court needs to respect their practices. The case established that religious beliefs could not be questioned in a legal context, but fraudulent actions disguised as religious activity could be regulated. If the Court were to find the psilocybin endangering members, then they could rule accordingly. However, Singularism practices with psilocybin have remained peaceful, not putting members in danger. 

In my opinion, if the Court ruled against Singularism practices, it would lead to a slippery slope, setting a dangerous precedent that the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the credibility of religious groups. The Free Exercise Clause protects minority groups, regardless of the display of unconventional practices. Additionally, Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. was passed to protect religious groups. The act "essentially acts as a proactive "blanket" protection by giving state government a higher threshold of religious exercise protection" (Sutherfield).  The actions of Utah law enforcement undermine the goals of the Act, by discriminating against minority groups. The RFRA is supposed to demonstrate that the religion's actions burden a compelling state interest. When law enforcement entered the Singularism Center, they claimed they were potentially subjected to criminalization because they were unfamiliar with their practices. Therefore, it challenges the promises protected by RFRA by discriminatory actions against Singularism. It is important for the Supreme Court to respect the practices of Singularism, even if seeming unconventional.

Sources:

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/utah-rfra-protects-psilocybin-using.html

https://sutherlandinstitute.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-a-proposed-religious-freedom-restoration-act-in-utah/

https://www.einpresswire.com/article/766508064/psychedelic-church-takes-federal-action-against-alleged-government-harassment-in-landmark-religious-freedom-case

Commandments on the Classroom Walls: A Clash Between Heritage and the Establishment Clause

    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: 

https://lailluminator.com/briefs/louisiana-issues-guidance-as-law-requiring-ten-commandments-in-classrooms-goes-into-effect/

https://www.aclu.org/cases/rev-roake-v-brumley

Are Louisiana lawmakers trying "to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity?"

Louisiana’s House Bill 71 would require all public schools in the state to plaster the Ten Commandments in all classrooms. This law would submit students of opposing faiths to scriptural dictates such as “I am the Lord thy god” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Multiple organizations who are devoted towards maintaining the separation of church and state such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the Middle District of Louisiana. These organizations are working for a group of nine families with different religious backgrounds, even those of Christian faiths, who have children attending Louisiana public school. The claims these organizations assert is that the law is a clear violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote “H.B 71 coerces children to view, venerate, and obey commandments that are against their beliefs and interferes with parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing.”

The lawsuit, Roake v. Brumley, decided that the display of the ten commandments was unconstitutional on November 12^th, 2024 in a federal district court. The Louisiana judge argued the legislation was “facially unconstitutional” and “in all applications” as it promoted Christian ideals that could be seen as coercive and supported religion in a public establishment that is paid for with taxpayer money. The plaintiff’s lawyers from the original court case said, “this ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity.”

However, the State of Louisiana appealed the court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Five public schools have blocked implementation of the Ten Commandments awaiting following lawsuits, while some school districts are complying. Some lawmakers argue that the Ten Commandments hold value in western society and should be viewed as a historical document rather than a religious document. The appeal process is being led by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana Solicitor Ben Agionaga. Liz Murill argues that “the commandments have historical significance as one of the foundations of our law” and that “there are numerous ways for our schools to constitutionally implement the law.” People in support of this Louisiana legislation argue the law would enforce that the context of the commandments’ role in American history would be included, schools would have room to implement the document how they see fit, and they would be small displays. As well, the commandments would need to be donated. Murill stated that the commandments would best be presented with other documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

                  If the case were to be appealed to the supreme court, it would threaten the precedent of the 1980 Supreme Court case titled Stone v. Graham. The court in a 5-4 vote decided that Kentucky’s requirement of the Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools violated the Establishment clause since the law violated the Lemon Test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The court said that the law “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious.” What interests me regarding this case and Roake v. Brumley, is how close the vote was, presenting how laws regarding religion have always been a divisive issue. Considering that the court is now filled with completely new justices who often align with a more conservative ideals, the possibility of this case being overturned seems to be a high possibility.

                  In my opinion, this case clearly violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise clause of the constitution as the language of the Ten Commandments is coercive in nature. My concern would primarily be for elementary school children who are very impressionable. Heather Weaver, an attorney for the ACL said, “public schools are not Sunday schools” and that “all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.” I completely agree with this statement considering how the Ten Commandments are viewed. The Ten Commandments in Christian faith is the moral code. If students of opposing faiths are taught this, especially younger children, they may feel since they don’t follow all the commandments, that they are doing something wrong. This feeling could threaten a parent’s control of their child’s religious upbringings. While certain commandments may not be inherently religious such as “you shall not murder” or “you shall not steal”, I don’t believe that the other commandments with clear religious motives such as “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” can be ignored.  The argument that the ten commandments is the foundation of American law seems to be a loose argument pushed by conservative law makers hoping to break down the wall between church and state. I don’t see laws preventing stealing and murder as religious backed laws, but moral laws that maintain peace and good order within the United States. Conservative lawmakers seem to understand the power they have within the Supreme Court and keep appealing laws regarding religion to the supreme court. Subjecting students in public schools to ideas such as “thou shalt have no other gods before me” clearly promotes Christian ideals which public schools should not endorse since they use taxpayer money and our American values aim to promote government free from religion. I also find that presenting the commandments with important United States documents like Liz Murill recommended illustrates the idea the United States was founded as a Christian state to students which contradicts the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    This case, along with other cases regarding religion in public schools, could raise concerns for the barrier between church and state. With the Supreme Court holding a 6-3 conservative majority, Senator Bob Phalen of Montana states “it is now a new day for religious freedom in America.” Senator Phalen has supported religious displays being allowed in schools. However, do these laws truly protect freedom of religion or do they rather a push to uphold conservative ideals against a consistently evolving and diversifying United States? Is it a coincidence that most of these legislations are being proposed by Christian, conservative lawmakers? At least fifteen states have created laws that would put the ten commandments in all public classrooms. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed up the Supreme Court, possibly overturning a 45 year old precedent.

Sources

- https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/rev-roake-v-brumley/

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321

- https://becketfund.org/media/louisiana-defends-ten-commandments-in-federal-appeals-court/

- https://stateline.org/2025/02/27/eyeing-a-friendly-supreme-court-republicans-push-for-the-ten-commandments-in-schools/

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisianas-ten-commandments-law-public-schools-temporarily-blocked-fed-rcna172286

- https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-blocks-louisiana-law-requiring-public-schools-to-display-ten-commandments-in-every-classroom

Faith, Freedom, and Fungi: The Legal Battle Over Psychedelic Sacraments

     A Utah federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing law enforcement from interfering with the religious use of psilocybin or hallucinogenic mushrooms by members of the Singularism Church. They are a newly established small minority faith group. The ruling mandated the return of all confiscated religious items, marking a significant victory for the religious plaintiff group. The court found that the Utah Controlled Substance Act substantially burdened the Singularism group from their sincere religious exercise and that the state failed to justify its actions under the strict scrutiny standard by Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The case of Jensen v. Utah County has raised some profound questions about religious liberty protections. This case allows exploring the broader implications for the protection of religious freedom and psychedelic drugs.

At the heart of the Jensen v. Utah County case is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, an individual's right to practice their religion without government interference. In the Singularism Church, it is believed that the use of psilocybin as a sacrament to write their own scripture and embark on spiritual journeys. The state of Utah tried to enforce its Controlled Substance Act against this spiritual group, categorically prohibiting their religious use of psychedelic drugs. Bridger Jensen (the plaintiff) argued that this kind of enforcement substantially burdened the church and their religious exercise, violating both the First Amendment and Utah's RFRA, which provides enhanced legal protections for spiritual practice. The court ruled in favor of Bridger Jensen. They emphasized that the practices of the Singularism Church were sincere religious expressions. This ruling ignored the government's point that Singularism lacked a central doctrine that weakened its claim to be a religion. However, the court emphasized that they have no right to judge a religion because it is not what they believe in. Religions can encompass a wide variety of spiritual experiences.

The ruling begins to build upon a larger legal subject of trying to protect religious practice from government interference. The Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ruled that generally neutral laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practices. However, the backlash from this case led to the enactment of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, leading to a stricter standard. This law required that any substantial burdens on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest and take the least restrictive means.

Although the Supreme Court later limited the RFRA's applicability to federal laws in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), many states enacted their own versions of the RFRA to ensure the protections were heightened for religious liberty. The reasoning in the Jensen case came from Utah's law enforcement failure to meet the strict scrutiny standard and justify why they placed this burden on Singularism's religious exercise.

The Jensen v. Utah County decision has significant ramifications for American drug policy and religious freedom. First, it emphasizes the importance of applying religious liberty laws fairly, regardless of how strange or contentious a group's ideas may appear. Emerging religious movements that use psychedelics should be given the same legal protection under the RFRA as long-standing religious traditions, such as Native American Church peyote rituals.

Second, the case adds to the continuing legal controversy surrounding the use of psychedelic drugs for therapeutic and religious purposes. As the potential mental health advantages of medicines like psilocybin are increasingly recognized by science, courts may be asked to decide cases where drug laws conflict with claims made by religious or medical groups. According to Jensen, in jurisdictions with strong RFRA safeguards, broad bans on controlled substances that do not consider sincere religious beliefs may not pass constitutional muster.

The court's ruling is a well-reasoned defense of religious freedom despite complex policy issues. This decision has raised the question regarding the possibility of abuse even if it is correctly defending the Singularism's religious liberty in this specific situation. Could nonreligious people create a fake religious group to take advantage of the privileges to allow the use of drugs? The sincerity of Singularism's beliefs was closely examined. For future instances, however, this might create a slippery slope and pose more unclear circumstances that make it difficult for judges to distinguish between legitimate religious practices and taking advantage of legal tactics. 

Jensen v Utah County upholds the Free Exercise Clause by declaring the idea that religious liberties are not always like the "traditional" faith. But it also brings up a generalized issue of the boundaries with religious tolerance and the government's control over them, especially restricted substances. Cases like Jensen's could be a stepping stone for future Supreme Court rulings on the balance between religious freedom and the role of drugs as the environment surrounding psychedelics changes. The courts must continue to protect the minority's rights from majority tyranny, especially when the issue at hand conflicts with social norms. 

Sources: 

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/utah-rfra-protects-psilocybin-using.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25545986-jensen-v-utah-county/

https://singularism.org/

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/07/07/first-church-cannabis-loses-lawsuit-marion-circuit-court/764407002/

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2024cv00887/152420/56/