As the debate surrounding the role of religion in public education intensifies, the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms has become a significant point of contention. In the last few years, at least a dozen states have debated proposals to mandate these biblical laws in schools, with Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas pushing through laws that require their display during the 2024-2025 school year.
However, federal trial courts have blocked the enforcement of these laws, including Texas’ recent ruling. These ongoing legal battles seem focused on challenging a precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court over four decades ago, which prohibits the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Researchers in the fields of religion and education law note the significance of these cases, especially in light of recent judicial shifts at the Supreme Court regarding religious freedom. Historical context is also essential, as the Supreme Court’s current stance on the role of religion in public education is arguably the most permissive in its history.
The foundation for these legal disputes begins with historic rulings concerning the Ten Commandments. Early court cases predominantly upheld mandates for their recitation in schools, as these issues arose prior to the Supreme Court’s extension of the First Amendment to the states in 1940.
The first notable challenge to the display of the Ten Commandments in schools occurred in 1980 when the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring their display in classrooms. This ruling was rooted in the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits laws respecting the establishment of religion.
Utilizing the ‘Lemon test,’ established in a 1971 decision, the Court assessed the legality of such displays. This test required government actions to possess a secular legislative purpose and to neither aid nor inhibit religious practices. Additionally, the actions had to avoid excessive entanglement with religion.
In the 1980 Kentucky case, the justices dismissed the state’s argument that the displays served an educational purpose. They found that characterizing the Ten Commandments as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization did not mitigate the inherently religious nature of the posters.
After 25 years, the Ten Commandments surfaced in Supreme Court discussions once again in a 2005 case. Controversies about public displays arose, mainly in Kentucky, where local officials erected displays at courthouses that included the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents.
In these rulings, the court invalidated the McCreary County display, finding that it lacked secular intent. Conversely, in the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the court upheld a long-standing Ten Commandments monument at the Texas Capitol because it was part of a broader historical context and funded privately, distinguishing it from more recent displays in Kentucky.
Fast forward to 2024, Louisiana’s law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools was blocked by a federal trial court. Nevertheless, similar laws were enacted in Arkansas and Texas soon after.
In April 2025, Arkansas enacted a law requiring the display of a durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments in all government buildings, which extend to public schools and colleges. One of the bill’s sponsors, Arkansas Republican Rep. Alyssa Brown, emphasized the aim of educating students about the historical foundations of the nation and its constitution.
“We’re not telling every student they have to believe in this God,” Brown stated, underscoring that the initiative was about upholding historical documents rather than mandating religious belief.
Texas followed suit, passing a similar law in June 2025. State Representative Candy Noble, sponsoring the Texas legislation, made a candid statement about the need for citizens to adhere to divine law.
Supporters advocate that these laws align with a pivotal transformation at the Supreme Court, with the adoption of a new ‘history and tradition test’ to evaluate religion’s presence in public settings. This test first emerged from the case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which addressed a public high school coach praying after games. In that ruling, the Court maintained that the government could not inhibit personal religious practices, affirming protections under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.
Kennedy marked a notable departure from previous legal standards, indicating that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted concerning historical practices and understandings. This interpretation has shifted the judicial landscape, but its implications remain uncertain in subsequent cases.
Opponents have quickly challenged Arkansas’s law, mobilizing families from diverse religious backgrounds to file a lawsuit. Their argument centers around claims that such mandates violate both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
In a ruling on August 4, a federal trial court sided with the families, reasoning that the requirement to display the Ten Commandments would compel students to engage with and possibly venerate these commandments. The court utilized the new historical practices and understandings test, concluding that there was no established tradition supporting the permanent display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Consequently, the court imposed a temporary injunction, preventing school boards from enforcing Act 573 while awaiting further appeals. Shortly thereafter, a similar order emerged from a federal trial court in Texas, prohibiting enforcement of that state’s law on similar grounds of likely constitutional violation.
As the conversation surrounding the Ten Commandments in educational settings evolves, it opens up broader discussions regarding religion’s place in public life. Supporters of these legislative efforts may overlook the complications of imposing specific religious values in state-funded institutions.
Conversely, numerous plaintiffs representing varied religious traditions do not necessarily wish to eliminate religion from educational environments. They advocate for a neutral stance from the government, promoting a delicate balance where no single religious viewpoint, or absence of religion, dominates the public sphere.
Finding this balance is essential as courts and legislatures navigate these contentious issues. The ultimate handling of these cases concerning the Ten Commandments’ place in public education could have profound implications for the future of religious freedom in American society. The ongoing legal battles illustrate the challenges of balancing the rights of both majority and minority beliefs while navigating the potentially divisive role of religious expression in public settings.
image source from：pennlive
