Court Orders Removal of Arkansas 10 Commandments Monument from State Capitol Grounds

In Cave v. Jester, (ED AR, March 31, 2026), an Arkansas federal district court ordered the Arkansas Secretary of State to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Arkansas State Capitol grounds. The monument was identical to the one approved by the Supreme Court in the Van Orden case. In ordering removal of the Arkansas monument, the court, in a 148-page opinion, said in part:

This case is factually distinguishable from both Van Orden and [the 8th Circuit's]  Plattsmouth [decision].  Perhaps most notably here, the Ten Commandments Monument is new, and the Orsi, Cave, and Intervenor plaintiffs did not wait many years before challenging the monument. ...

Additionally, unlike in Van Orden and Plattsmouth where the Ten Commandments monuments were funded by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, a civic organization with the secular purpose to reduce juvenile delinquency, here the Ten Commandments Monument was funded by a GoFundMe account set up by Senator Rapert through the Foundation with major funding from Agape Church in Little Rock and PureFlix Entertainment, whose stated purpose as a “Christian Movie Studio” is “to influence the global culture for Christ through media” and whose mission is to “to strive to make a difference for His name.”...  

Also, the context of the passage of the Display Act giving rise to the Ten Commandments Monument is different from the context of the monuments in Van Orden and Plattsmouth.  The passage of the Display Act itself indicates that the Display Act favors religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.....     

Further, the Arkansas General Assembly’s stated purpose for passing the Display Act was not to commemorate the State’s religious heritage or the development of the law or any other secular idea.  Instead, the Arkansas General Assembly’s stated purpose in passing legislation to mandate the placement of a new, stand-alone monument on State Capitol grounds was “commemorating the Ten Commandments.”  Ark. Code Ann. § 22-3-221(b)(1)....

Axios reports on the decision.

High School Teacher Did Not Violate Constitution in Counseling Muslim Student Who Converted to Christianity

In Chaudhry v. Thorsen, (ND IL, March 18, 2026), an Illinois federal district court rejected Establishment Clause, substantive due process, and equal protection claims against Pierre Thorsen, a high school history teacher, brought by Muslim parents of one of Thorsen's students. According to the court:

Entering Jacobs High School, Aliya—the daughter of Chaudhry and Alvi—identified as Muslim but was actively questioning her faith. In two classes with Thorsen, she established a strong rapport with him. She trusted him enough to approach him and ask personal questions related to her faith, having conversations before and after school....  As Aliya gradually chose to convert from Islam to Christianity, Thorsen grew concerned for her well-being given the ongoing family dynamics that she professed to him. He connected her to resources in the community, some of which included his own personal connections: a neighbor, a pastor, and former students. He also, at her request, gave her a Bible from one of these connections.....

Parents suffer no legal injury when their child uses his or her own free will and independent judgment to embrace beliefs that differ from their own.... 

Thorsen’s actions weren’t coercive. He never forced Aliya to talk to him. Rather, she initiated their conversations. When they talked, he didn’t badger Aliya into changing her beliefs. Instead, he talked with her about his own beliefs while also encouraging her to speak to her parents and an imam when she expressed doubts about her religion. It may not have been appropriate for Thorsen to ... connect her with adults in the community, particularly without at least looping in Jacobs’ administration or social workers, if not Aliya’s parents. But this doesn’t violate the Constitution, because Aliya wasn’t coerced into religious activity. Inappropriateness doesn’t necessarily violate the Constitution....

Distinguishing between “historical” teachings consistent with what every high school history student should know and “theological” lessons better reserved for Sunday School is a difficult line to draw, but, wherever it is drawn, Thorsen didn’t cross it. 

As a matter of law, Thorsen’s actions didn’t impermissibly establish religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

The leap required to get from his actions—assisting Aliya in a pre-existing religious journey—to a nefarious discriminatory intent against Muslims as a class, is far beyond the capabilities of a reasonable jury, and the Court can’t allow the claim to proceed as a matter of law.

Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Arkansas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

In Stinson v. Fayetteville School District , (WD AR, March 16, 2026), an Arkansas federal district court issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing Arkansas' statute that requires the posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court, finding both Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause problems with the law, said in part:

... [T]he State makes three important factual stipulations about Act 573:    

(1) “Act 573 does not direct teachers to provide instruction about the Ten Commandments or about the displays.”  

(2) “Act 573 does not require classroom instruction, and it does not require that the Ten Commandments be incorporated into public school curriculum.”  

(3) “There is no requirement for teachers, other school officials, or students to interact with, bring attention to, or even acknowledge the posters in any way.” 

In other words, the State admits there is no educational purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments—no teaching, no learning, and no curricular integration.  

The Court is “reluctan[t] to attribute unconstitutional motives to the State[ ], . . . when a plausible secular purpose . . . may be discerned from the face of the statute.”... But here, a plausible secular purpose is expressly disavowed. 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 State has said the quiet part out loud....

Act 573 is subject to strict scrutiny because it is denominationally preferential and burdens parent-Plaintiffs’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Arkansas Advocate reports on the court's decision.

Oklahoma AG Sues to Overturn Charter School Board's Strategic Factual Record In Rejecting Religious School

As previously reported, in May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court split evenly, 4-4, on the constitutionality Oklahoma funding a religiously sponsored charter school. The even split was caused by Justice Barrett recusing herself, apparently because of her connection to those promoting the school. Subsequently, a new test case was created, as the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation applied to create for a statewide virtual high school. (See prior posting.) This Tuesday, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted to reject the Ben Gamla School's most recent application and gave as its formal reason only that under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school and must be nonsectarian.  The next day, Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Charter School Board in an Oklahoma state trial court contending that there were additional unrelated reasons for rejection of Ben Gamla's application. The suit seeks a writ of mandamus to require the Board to identify and incorporate into the record other valid, non-constitutional grounds for the rejection.

The petition (full text) in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 3/11/2026), alleges in part:

[T]he Board's refusal to list all of the reasons for rejecting the revised application is not coincidental. It is a deliberate decision designed to avoid issues of state law when Ben Gamla files a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board.... Oklahoma law does not permit the Board to strategically withhold valid grounds for rejection....

Presumably, if other grounds for the application denial were included, the U.S. Supreme Court might refuse to decide the federal constitutional issue posed by state funded religious schools on the ground that there were other reasons for the Board's rejection of the Ben Gamla application.

VINnews reports on the lawsuit.

Cemetery Loses Free Exercise and Establishment Clause Challenges to Permit Denial

In Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County, Minnesota, (D MN, March 11, 2026), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed claims under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, RLUIPA, and Minnesota law brought by a nonprofit corporation that was refused permission to establish a cemetery that would perform "green burials." While Minnesota law allowed "religious corporations" to establish private cemeteries, Steelmantown was not formed as a Minnesota religious corporation. The court, explaining its rejection of Steelmantown's 1stAmendment claims, said in part:

... [E]stablishing and operating a cemetery of any sort is not inherently or exclusively a religious practice, and Section 307.01 on its face does not “aid or oppose particular religions” or “establish[] a denominational preference.”...  The statute expressly authorizes “any private person” or “any religious corporation,” regardless of whether they adhere to any religious faith, to establish a private cemetery on land the person or corporation owns....  The statute’s reference to “any religious corporation,” meaning those incorporated under Chapter 315, establishes only a preference toward a specific type of incorporated entity, not a particular religious faith or denomination.... 

Steelmantown effectively seeks preferential treatment because of its religious beliefs that a secular but otherwise identical institution—that is, a foreign nonprofit corporation whose “identity and mission” are not “derived from religious or spiritual traditions,” ... would not receive in the same circumstances.  If anything, that outcome would appear to be closer to a violation of the Establishment Clause than the conduct Steelmantown challenges here....

Steelmantown’s claim, in essence, appears to be that its religious practices are burdened by the requirement to incorporate (or reincorporate) under Chapter 315....  But nowhere does Steelmantown allege any facts that show this requirement “significantly inhibit[s] or constrain[s]” any “conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet” of its religious beliefs, “meaningfully curtail[s]” its “ability to express adherence” to those beliefs, or denies it a “reasonable opportunity to engage in those activities.” ... It does not explain, for instance, why maintaining its status as a foreign nonprofit corporation under Chapter 303 is central to its ability to express its religious beliefs or engage in its religious practices.  Nor does Steelmantown allege facts that suggest the requirement “operates so as to make the practice of [its] religious beliefs more expensive.”...

Advocacy Group Says Military Commanders Are Describing Iran Operations in Christian Biblical Terms

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy organization dedicated to assuring church-state separation in the armed forces, reported yesterday that it has received numerous complaints from military personnel that, in briefings, their commanders are describing the military operations against Iran in Christian eschatological terms. According to a report on Substack by journalist Jonathan Larsen:

A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.

From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

The complaints came from more than 40 different units spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.

Suit Alleges Unconstitutional Exclusion of Muslim Schools from Texas School Choice Program

A Muslim parent filed suit this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the state's exclusion of accredited Islamic private schools from participation in the Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA) program. TEFA is a publicly funded school choice program. The complaint (full text) in Cherkaoui v. Paxton, (SD TX, filed 3/1/2026), alleges in part:

Since TEFA's inception, Defendants have systematically targeted Islamic schools for exclusion based on their religious identity, perceived "Islamic ties," and alleged connections to organizations Governor Abbott has designated as "foreign terrorist" or "transnational criminal" entities—even where those schools are fully accredited, satisfy all statutory eligibility criteria, and have no actual connection to terrorism or unlawful activity.

The complaint contends that the state has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, alleging in part: 

85. Defendants' exclusion of Islamic schools is not neutral or generally applicable. It is explicitly based on religious identity (schools are targeted because they are Islamic), perceived religious association (hosting community events with Islamic civil-rights organizations), and religious animus (official statements equating Islamic identity with terrorism)....

89.   By systematically excluding Islamic schools while approving hundreds of Christian, Jewish, and other non-Islamic religious schools for TEFA participation, Defendants have engaged in denominational discrimination that favors non-Islamic religions over Islam in the distribution of a public benefit. 

90. Defendants' policies and public statements evince a purpose and effect of disfavoring Islam and conveying governmental disapproval of the Muslim faith....

Texas Tribune reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Hospital Justified In Firing Nurse for Praying with Patients, Discussing Holocaust With Patient

In Sanders v. Kootenai Hospital District, (D ID, Feb. 20, 2026), an Idaho federal district court rejected various claims by Claudia Sanders, a nurse at a crisis center who was fired by her employer, a publicly operated hospital. Sanders duties included triaging patients. According to the court:

Sanders alleges two incidents in which she engaged in constitutionally protected speech or activity that were the cause of her termination. First, she maintains that on January 23, 2022, she “discussed the Holocaust in general terms” with a Jewish patient and provided the patient a copy of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book written by a psychiatrist who survived the Holocaust.... Second, she contends that she has previously prayed with patients who asked her to pray.

In rejecting Sanders' free speech claims, the court said in part:

The First Amendment does not protect speech made pursuant to a government employee’s official duties....

Sanders admitted that she prayed with patients under the belief that such conduct fell within her job responsibilities....

Sanders’ January 23 discussion on the Holocaust with a patient also was made pursuant to her official duties as a NICC triage nurse....  Because Sanders’ speech owes its existence to her position, she spoke as an employee—not as a citizen. Therefore, the Court concludes that Sanders did not engage in protected speech....

... It is not unreasonable for Kootenai to consider Sanders’ statements about the Holocaust, which implied that it either did not happen or that it was a good thing ...  disruptive to its ability to serve the community...

Kootenai was also justified in terminating Sanders for engaging in prayer with patients. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government has a compelling interest in avoiding the appearance of taking a position on questions of religious belief when the restriction applies to government employees engaging in religious speech while providing state-sponsored services.... 

... Sanders promoted religious messages while working with patients on Kootenai business, raising a legitimate Establishment Clause concern.....

The court also rejected Sanders' claims of wrongful termination, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and tarnishing of her reputation.

5th Circuit En Banc: Challenge to Louisiana Classroom 10 Commandments Mandate Is Not Ripe

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., Feb. 20, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc by a vote of 11-7 vacated on jurisdictional grounds a preliminary injunction that had barred schools from complying with a Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) The majority held that the case was not ripe, saying in part:

Asking us to declare—here and now, and in the abstract—that every possible H.B. 71 display would violate the Establishment Clause would require precisely what [prior Supreme Court precedent] ... forbids: the substitution of speculation for adjudication. It would oblige us to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays and then assess each under a context-sensitive standard that depends on facts not yet developed and, indeed, not yet knowable. That exercise exceeds the judicial function. It is not judging; it is guessing. And because it rests on conjecture rather than a concrete factual record, it does not cure the ripeness defect—it compounds it....

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that their constitutional objection to the Louisiana Ten Commandments law “may properly begin and end” with Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). 

That’s telling, because Stone turns entirely on Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)—and everyone agrees that Lemon is no longer good law after Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507, 534 (2022)....

Later Supreme Court opinions have further affirmed that passive religious displays are not coercive....

Plaintiffs present no historical evidence that remotely suggests that our Founders would have regarded a passive display of the Ten Commandments as an impermissible “establishment of religion.” ...

Judge Dennis, joined by Judges Graves, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Here, the legislative record demonstrates that a religious objective dominated. Sponsors repeatedly invoked teaching children “what God commands,” lamented the decline of Christianity, and openly framed opposition to H.B. 71 as an “attack on Christianity.” Another co-sponsor touted the law as a religious counterbalance to secular education....

...  Stone remains controlling because Louisiana vastly overstates Kennedy’s significance. Kennedy repudiated only the endorsement test—an offshoot of Lemon’s second prong—and left intact the broader framework of Establishment Clause doctrine: the requirement of a secular legislative purpose, the prohibition on policies whose primary effect advances religion, and the concern about excessive entanglement between church and state....

Judge Haynes filed a brief dissenting opinion.

Judge Higginson, joined by Judges Dennis, Graves, Douglas and Ramirez filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

We know from Louisiana lawmakers the chosen scriptural text was not happenstance. The legislators had definitive religious motivation when they selected a Protestant version of the Decalogue to display....

... Jewish plaintiffs and organizations voice that it violates their faith to make Jewish children stare at a Protestant “misappropriat[ion]” of their most sacred text....

Judge Ramirez, joined by Judges Stewart, Dennis, Graves, Higginson and Douglas, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part: 

Because H.B. 71 provides sufficient information about the mandatory classroom religious displays, and requires no other materials to be displayed, “no additional factual development” is required to determine the statute’s facial invalidity....

Louisiana’s argument that the court must know what other materials may accompany each Ten Commandments poster to evaluate H.B. 71’s constitutionality also ignores the nature of Plaintiffs’ facial claims—that H.B. 71’s minimum requirements render it unconstitutional in all applications.

Louisiana Illuminator reports on the decision.

Mayor's Statements About Prayer Event Sponsors May Have Violated Establishment Clause

Johnson v. City of Seattle, (WD WA, Feb. 18, 2026), is a suit by promoters of a worship event held in a Seattle park. According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that ... a large group of protestors came to the park to agitate, disrupt, and assault Plaintiffs for the views, message, and content of their event....  [S]hortly after the event had begun, event organizers were approached by the police and told to shut down the event because of violent protestors that the police could not control....  Two protestors attacked the event’s stage, ripped down the fabric banners and kicked over equipment, and other protestors exposed body parts, engaged in lewd behavior in front of minor children, threw urine-filled water balloons, sprayed attendees with pepper spray and tear gas, and harassed Plaintiffs with curse words and violent threats....

On the same day, Mayor Harrell issued a press release stating that Plaintiffs’ event was an “Extreme Right-Wing Rally”, and that Plaintiffs were responsible for the violence that had been perpetrated against them.... Plaintiffs allege that they were blamed for deliberately provoking the reaction “by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”.... Mayor Harrell issued another press release ... which contained statements from the City’s “Christian and Faith Leaders” condemning Plaintiffs for their event and blaming them for the violence perpetrated against them.... According to the City’s faith leaders, Plaintiffs targeted the LGBTQ+ community....

The court refused to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Here, the dearth of allegations of intended future conduct, threat of future enforcement, or self-censorship, clearly does not satisfy a pre-enforcement injury in fact.

However, the court allowed plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit seeking other relief, including their Establishment Clause claim which defendants had asked the court to dismiss. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs ... argue that the statements made by Defendant Harrell after the event was shut down are laden with hostility toward religion, and the condemning statements made by other religious sects and cited in the second press release demonstrates Defendants’ preference for other religions.... These statements were made in formal press releases from the “Office of the Mayor.”... Official expressions of hostility directly connected to Plaintiffs and their event, combined with the supporting hostile statements made by City religious leaders that are officially approved by the City, can have the effect of showing that the City is failing its duty of neutrality, invalidating the facial neutrality of an ordinance....

Suit Challenges Colorado's Blaine Amendment

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court challenging the Colorado Constitution's ban on use of state funds to support any religious school as violative of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The challenge was brought by a Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), a private entity which contracts with schools to provide them innovative educational services. BOCES can receive and administer state and federal education grants. The complaint (full text) in Education Re-Envisioned BOCES v. Cordova, (D CO, filed 2/13/2026), focuses on the inability of BOCES to contract with religious schools, alleging in part:

24. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) provides funding to ERBOCES for these contract schools....

33. In August 2025 ... ERBOCES entered a contract with Riverstone Academy to provide tuition-free education to the parents and children of Pueblo County, Colorado.  

34. After ERBOCES contracted with Riverstone, it submitted its annual request for state funding to CDE. ERBOCES included Riverstone Academy’s students in its request.  

35. In response to its funding request, ERBOCES received a letter from CDE stating that Colorado law requires ERBOCES to refuse to contract with any religious school....  

36. Specifically, the letter informed ERBOCES that providing funding to Riverstone Academy would violate the Colorado Constitution and Colorado statutory law because Riverstone is a Christian school....

73. The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” Carson, 596 U.S. at 778....

76. State provisions prohibiting aid to “sectarian” institutions date back to the 1870s and were enacted out of hostility to certain religious groups. Such provisions were “born of bigotry” against religion, especially the Catholic church.....  

77. Colorado’s Blaine amendment shares this “shameful pedigree.”...

93. To the extent the Colorado Constitution and any implementing statutes require school districts and BOCES to scrutinize contract school applicants’ curricula to determine if they are religious, they violate the Establishment Clause. ...

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Coinage Containing "In God We Trust" Motto

In Clayman v. Bessent, (SD FL, Jan. 8, 2026), a Florida federal district court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from designing or producing any coins or currency containing the "Divine Name" of God. Plaintiff contends that the national motto on coins and currency violates the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His complaint focuses on a proposed new coin that would carry the likeness of Donald Trump and the motto In God We Trust. The court said in part:

The United States of America will celebrate its 250th anniversary this year on July 4, 2026. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God." The Pledge of Allegiance refers to "one Nation under God." 4 U.S.C. § 4. The use of the word God on coins began in 1864 on the two-cent coin. "In God We Trust" began to appear on U.S. paper currency in 1957, as required by Public Law 84-140. By statute, all coins must contain the "in God we trust" language. See 31 U.S.C. § 5112. In light of this history, statutory authority, and case law, there is simply no basis for this Court to grant the broad injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff.

Indiana Asks Court to Vacate 2002 Injunction Barring 10 Commandments Monument at Statehouse

Last week, Indiana's Attorney General filed a motion in an Indiana federal district court asking the court to vacate an injunction it issued in 2002 enjoining the governor from erecting a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Indiana statehouse grounds.  The motion (full text) in Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. Braun, (SD IN, filed 12/29/25), reads in part:

In 2002, this Court permanently enjoined the Governor of Indiana from “taking any steps to erect, on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse,” a proposed monument that depicts the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, and preamble to the Indiana Constitution.... The Court entered the injunction only after the Seventh Circuit held that similarly situated plaintiffs had standing to challenge the placement of such monuments and this monument’s placement would violate the Establishment Clause principles laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman.....   

Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court announced that Lemon has been “abrogated” and that Establishment Clause claims instead must be evaluated based on history and tradition.... Viewed through the lens of this Nation’s history and traditions, erecting the monument raises no Establishment Clause concerns.... That substantial change in law renders it improper to maintain the injunction.  

Substantial changes in standing doctrine provide a second, independent reason for vacating the injunction.... Now that Lemon is no longer good law, there is no longer any basis for holding that an offended observer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim. That, too, makes relief from the final judgment proper. 

The Attorney General also filed a 20-page Brief In Support of the Motion. In a press release announcing the court filing, the Attorney General said in part:

The monument—a gift from the Indiana Limestone Institute—displays the Ten Commandments on one large side, the Bill of Rights on the opposite side, and the Preamble to the Indiana Constitution on the smaller sides. A similar monument stood peacefully on the Statehouse lawn for over 30 years until it was vandalized in 1991....

The monument remains in Bedford, Indiana, and would be placed near its original intended location if the court grants the motion.

WTHI-TV News reports additional background information.

Bagua Mirror on City Property Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Ngo v. City of Westminster, (CD CA, Nov. 26, 2025), a California federal district court held that display of a Bagua Mirror on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff alleged that the Mirror was a religious symbol displayed outside the mayor's office on a city hall wall, and that as a devout Catholic, he was offended by the display of the Mirror.

The court said in part:

Neither party has briefed in any detail how the Bagua Mirror display fits in the historical understandings and practices of this nation regarding the Establishment Clause.  However, the Supreme Court has noted there “is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”...

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court held that a city owned and displayed Christmas nativity scene including the Infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph did not violate the Establishment Clause....  In that opinion, the Supreme Court opined on the long history and tradition of government sponsored and displayed religious symbols.  For example, “[a]rt galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith.”...  

From the Supreme Court’s recounting, it is clear that government-sponsored and displayed religious symbols have long been part of this nation’s history and practices, without violating the Establishment Clause.  Therefore, the Court finds the allegation that a Bagua Mirror was displayed on City property insufficient to state a claim for violation of the Establishment Clause.  In addition, the SAC’s allegation that Plaintiff was offended at the sight of the Bagua Mirror does not amount to any degree of governmental coercion.  Offense does not equate to coercion....  The SAC’s Establishment Clause Claim is dismissed.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Class Action Filed Challenging Texas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in All Classrooms

 A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the recently enacted Texas statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom.  Two decisions, together impacting 25 specific school districts, have held the law unconstitutional. (See prior postings 1, 2 )  However, Texas has over 1000 school districts. The class action seeks to bar enforcement of statute in all Texas schools that are not parties to other cases already in the courts.  The complaint (full text) in Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/2/2025), alleges in part:

6.  The state’s main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious spectrum....

7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents and minor children, seek a declaratory judgment that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly situated from complying with the Act. 

ACLU Texas along with several other civil rights organizations issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

"In God We Trust" On Currency Does Not Burden Jewish Plaintiff's Religious Exercise

 In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts." According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for 28 days due to his inability to pay cash-only bail;  that he continues to be vulnerable to pretrial detention due to the unavailability of cashless bail; that he is excluded from certain employment because he cannot handle cash; that he faces surcharges for not using cash; that he has difficulty with road trips in that he has to avoid cash-only tolls; that he cannot hold cash in contemplation of electronic systems failing due to natural disasters; that his future children’s lives will be disrupted because they cannot handle cash; that he has difficulty tipping and donating to the needy; that he cannot walk into public bathrooms with cash on his person; that he cannot park in cash-only lots; that he is unable to accept small-dollar political contributions; that he cannot operate a retail business; that he was unable to use $2,000 in cash he received as wedding gifts; that he suffers from a loss of privacy; and that he is excluded from cash-only services such as laundromats, bars, social events, and street food.  

In dismissing plaintiff's claims (with leave to amend), the court concluded that plaintiff had not established that the government has substantially burdened his exercise of religion.

New Test Case on State-Funded Religious Charter Schools Is Being Assembled

 As previously reported, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the question of whether the 1st Amendment allows Oklahoma to authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored virtual charter school. The split was caused by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusing herself due to her connection to an early legal advisor to the school. The 4-4 split resulted in the affirmance of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violated Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Now, according to JTA, a new test case is being put together. JTA reports in part:

The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has notified an Oklahoma state board that it intends to apply for a statewide virtual high school integrating Oklahoma academic standards with daily Jewish religious studies....

... [T]he group’s legal team — led by Becket, a prominent nonprofit religious-liberty law firm — is preparing for the state board to reject the application, setting the stage for a federal lawsuit and, potentially, a precedent-setting ruling at the Supreme Court....

The group will not sue in state court, bypassing the state Supreme Court ruling against St. Isidore, but in federal court, where they believe they will prevail.

By framing Oklahoma’s refusal as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, Ben Gamla hopes to build on recent Supreme Court rulings holding that states may not exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits solely because they are religious.

Court Enjoins School Districts from Complying with Texas Mandate to Post 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, Nov. 18, 2025), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 14 Texas school districts from complying with SB 10, a recent Texas statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court concluded that the case is factually indistinguishable from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham. The court held that the Supreme Court's later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District abandoned the Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases, the Supreme Court "gave no indication it was abrogating or overruling any of its public school cases." The court said in part:

Even if Kennedy undermined Stone to some extent, it would still control this case. Lower courts must apply controlling Supreme Court precedent even when it appears to rest on "reasons rejected in some other line of decisions."

Eleven other Texas school districts were previously enjoined from complying with SB 10. (See prior posting.) 

ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.