Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Texas
Related: About this forumJudge temporarily blocks Texas' Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts
This was a stupid move by Abbot and the Texas GOP
Judge temporarily blocks Texasâ Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts www.texastribune.org/2025/06/26/t... via @texastribune.org
— (@newmexicanextexan.bsky.social) 2025-08-20T15:22:05.920Z
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/26/texas-schools-commandments-requirement-lawsuit
A Texas federal judge on Wednesday blocked from taking full effect a new state law requiring public schools to display donated posters of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
The ruling only applies to the nearly a dozen Texas school districts named in the lawsuit, though attorneys who brought forth the lawsuit expressed hope in court that other districts would not implement a law that a federal judge has now found unconstitutional.
Oral arguments in the case, Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, concluded on Monday, several weeks after 16 parents of various religious backgrounds, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other religious freedom organizations, sued the state over what their lawyers called "catastrophically unconstitutional legislation.
In court, they argued with a lawyer from the state attorney general's office over the role Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played in developing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of religion. Both parties also debated the influence of the Ten Commandments on the country's legal and educational systems, and whether the version of the Ten Commandments required to go up in schools belongs to a particular religious group.....
The attorneys called the version of the Ten Commandments in SB 10 a "state-sponsored Protestant version," which was corroborated by their witness, constitutional law professor and religious history expert Steven Green. They argued against the notion that the Ten Commandments were central to the development of the country's legal and educational systems, which Green agreed lacks historical support.
Although the ACLU lawsuit only applies to 11 school districts, attorneys for the religious freedom organizations hope that a ruling in their favor will signal to districts throughout the rest of the state that they should not comply with the law before the dispute gets resolved by the courts.
The ruling only applies to the nearly a dozen Texas school districts named in the lawsuit, though attorneys who brought forth the lawsuit expressed hope in court that other districts would not implement a law that a federal judge has now found unconstitutional.
Oral arguments in the case, Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, concluded on Monday, several weeks after 16 parents of various religious backgrounds, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other religious freedom organizations, sued the state over what their lawyers called "catastrophically unconstitutional legislation.
In court, they argued with a lawyer from the state attorney general's office over the role Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played in developing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of religion. Both parties also debated the influence of the Ten Commandments on the country's legal and educational systems, and whether the version of the Ten Commandments required to go up in schools belongs to a particular religious group.....
The attorneys called the version of the Ten Commandments in SB 10 a "state-sponsored Protestant version," which was corroborated by their witness, constitutional law professor and religious history expert Steven Green. They argued against the notion that the Ten Commandments were central to the development of the country's legal and educational systems, which Green agreed lacks historical support.
Although the ACLU lawsuit only applies to 11 school districts, attorneys for the religious freedom organizations hope that a ruling in their favor will signal to districts throughout the rest of the state that they should not comply with the law before the dispute gets resolved by the courts.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Judge temporarily blocks Texas' Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts (Original Post)
LetMyPeopleVote
Aug 20
OP
MaddowBlog-Court rejects Texas Republicans' law requiring Ten Commandments displays in schools
LetMyPeopleVote
Aug 20
#1
LetMyPeopleVote
(168,691 posts)1. MaddowBlog-Court rejects Texas Republicans' law requiring Ten Commandments displays in schools
The Supreme Court has already ruled against Ten Commandments in classrooms. Republicans in several states are approving new laws anyway.
The Supreme Court has already ruled against state-imposed Ten Commandments displays in classrooms. Republicans keep approving new state laws anyway.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-08-20T18:28:49.780Z
So far this summer, laws in Louisiana, Arkansas, and as of today, Texas, have lost in court. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/court-rejects-texas-republicans-law-requiring-ten-commandments-display-rcna226116
Now, Texas has joined the club. The Associated Press reported:
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery, who wrote: Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do.
His 55-page ruling began with quoting the First Amendment and ended with Amen.....
The Decalogue, the justices ruled in Stone v. Graham, is undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths and displaying them serves no ... educational function.
So why would Republicans in several states take a step that the Supreme Court has already rejected? Its probably because theyre confident that the newly politicized high court and its dominant far-right majority will simply overturn the Stone precedent, doing fresh harm to the wall thats supposed to separate church and state in this country.
These GOP officials are almost certainly aware of the First Amendment, just as theyre almost certainly aware of the Supreme Court precedent that says they cannot legally do what theyre trying to do.
Texas cannot require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a judge said Wednesday in a temporary ruling against the states new requirement, making it the third such state law to be blocked by a court. A group of Dallas-area families and faith leaders sought a preliminary injunction against the law, which goes into effect on Sept. 1.
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery, who wrote: Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do.
His 55-page ruling began with quoting the First Amendment and ended with Amen.....
The Decalogue, the justices ruled in Stone v. Graham, is undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths and displaying them serves no ... educational function.
So why would Republicans in several states take a step that the Supreme Court has already rejected? Its probably because theyre confident that the newly politicized high court and its dominant far-right majority will simply overturn the Stone precedent, doing fresh harm to the wall thats supposed to separate church and state in this country.
These GOP officials are almost certainly aware of the First Amendment, just as theyre almost certainly aware of the Supreme Court precedent that says they cannot legally do what theyre trying to do.