Several Louisiana families, supported by human rights organizations, have filed a federal lawsuit to challenge a new state law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge, marks the beginning of what could be a significant legal battle, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argue that the law, known as HB71, is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses.
The controversial law, signed by Governor Jeff Landry, requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all public school classrooms in a specific format: framed documents at least 11 inches by 14 inches, with the text in a large, easily readable font. The plaintiffs, including rabbis, pastors, and parents, contend that this law sends a divisive message, suggesting that students who do not adhere to the Ten Commandments are not part of their school community.
One of the central arguments against the law is that it is based on a fabricated historical claim. HB71 cites a fictitious quote attributed to James Madison, the fourth U.S. president, which has no basis in his writings or speeches. This quote was popularized by the late right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh and is used to support the law’s assertion of a historical link between the Ten Commandments and public education in the U.S.
Reverend Jeff Sims, a plaintiff and Presbyterian minister, expressed his concerns, stating that the law infringes on his and his children’s religious freedom. He emphasized that the separation of church and state allows families to decide how and when their children are introduced to religious texts. Another plaintiff, Joshua Herlands, a Jewish father, pointed out that the version of the Ten Commandments mandated by the law does not align with his faith’s practices, which could make his children feel marginalized.
The lawsuit also highlights the potential for religious coercion, as students are legally required to attend school and would be exposed to these religious displays daily. This could create an environment where students who do not follow the state-sanctioned version of the Ten Commandments feel unwelcome.
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, warned that Christian nationalism is gaining momentum across the country, with politicians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on public institutions. She stressed that the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state are fundamental to the nation’s founding and must be upheld.
The plaintiffs, supported by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the law from being implemented. A full hearing is expected later this summer, where they will argue for a permanent block on the law.
The legal challenge draws on longstanding Supreme Court precedent. In the 1980 case Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the First Amendment by mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The court found that the law had no secular purpose and served a plainly religious objective.
Despite this precedent, Louisiana’s new law has garnered support from state officials, including Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill, who has expressed her readiness to defend it. Murrill criticized the ACLU for what she perceives as selective concern for the First Amendment, accusing the organization of ignoring other instances of government overreach.
The lawsuit underscores the broader national debate over the role of religion in public schools. Other states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah, have attempted to pass similar laws, but none have succeeded in implementing such mandates due to legal challenges. Louisiana’s law, which requires the displays to be in place by 2025, is the first of its kind to be enacted.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. Legal experts believe that the case is clear-cut based on existing Supreme Court rulings, but the current conservative majority on the court could potentially influence the outcome if the case reaches that level.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit come from diverse religious backgrounds, including Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and non-religious families. They argue that the law interferes with their right to direct their children’s religious education and imposes a specific religious doctrine on public school students.
Reverend Darcy Roake, a Unitarian Universalist minister and plaintiff, emphasized the importance of religious inclusion and diversity. She expressed concern that the mandated displays would create an unwelcoming environment for children who do not adhere to the state’s preferred version of scripture.
The lawsuit represents a significant effort to uphold the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. As the legal battle unfolds, it will serve as a critical test of these foundational principles and their application in public education.
Source: The Guardian, Associated Press, American Civil Liberties Union
