Louisiana AG Issues Guidance to Schools on Posting the Ten Commandments in Classrooms

Last week, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill issued Guidance (full text) to public schools on implementing the state's new Ten Commandments Law that requires display of the Ten Commandments in each public-school classroom. The Guidance requires posting only if the displays themselves or funding for the displays are donated. The Guidance includes four separate thematic posters that pair the Ten Commandments with other pictures or texts.  The Attorney General says that these assure the constitutionality of the displays. Schools may choose any of the posters. The themes of the posters are The House of Representatives & the Lawgivers; The Supreme Court & the Lawgivers; Religion's Role in American Public Education; and The Supreme Court & the Religion Clauses of the Constitution. Reporting on the new Guidance, the Louisiana Illuminator points out that "The new law does not include any punishment for not posting the display in classrooms." A federal district court has enjoined five Parishes from implementing the new law. (See prior posting.) The state is appealing that decision to the Fifth Circuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Louisiana's Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Public Schools

Suit was filed yesterday in a Louisiana federal district court by a group of parents (some of whom are clergy) on behalf of their minor children challenging Louisiana's recently enacted statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. Contending that the law violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the complaint (full text) in Roake v. Brumley, (MD LA, filed 6/24/2024) alleges in part:

Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every Louisiana public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that H.B. 71 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And it substantially interferes with and burdens the right of parents to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing.  

...The state’s main interest in passing H.B. 71 was to impose religious beliefs on public-school children, regardless of the harm to students and families. The law’s primary sponsor and author, Representative Dodie Horton, proclaimed during debate over the bill that it “seeks to have a display of God’s law in the classroom for children to see what He says is right and what He says is wrong.”

The advocacy groups bringing the suit (ACLU, Americans United, FFRF) issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Louisiana Governor Signs "Given Name Act", School Chaplaincy and 10 Commandments Bills

On Wednesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a package of 18 separate bills which the Governor's office described as " bills that will transform our education system and bring back common sense in our classrooms."  Among the bills were:

HB 121, the "Given Name Act" (full text). The new law prohibits any public or charter school policy "that provides for an inquiry of" the pronouns of a student or employee that are inconsistent with their biological sex, or "that provides for an inquiry of" their name that is not their legal name or a derivative of it. Teachers and other employees as well as other students may not be required to address a student by a name other than the student's legal name or a derivative of it, or to address a student using pronouns that are inconsistent with the person's biological sex. A parent may seek corrective action if a school employee refers to a student by other pronouns or by another name and may bring suit if corrective action is intentionally not taken. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

HB 334 (full text) which permits public school boards to "employ or accept as a volunteer a certified chaplain to provide support, services, and programs for students, staff, and parents as assigned by a school board...." The new law also provides the chaplain with immunity from suit for actions or statements made under the program unless they were "maliciously, willfully, and deliberately intended to cause harm to harass or intimidate those seeking support, services and programs."

HB 71 that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school and college classroom. See this post for additional details.

Louisiana Legislature Requires Posting of 10 Commandments in Every Public School and College Classroom

The Louisiana legislature this week gave final passage to HB71 (full text) which requires all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in each classroom. The bill specifies the Ten Commandments text which must be used-- choosing the text that appeared on the Ten Commandments marker at the Texas State Capitol that was the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden v. Perry. The Louisiana bill requires:

The nature of the display shall be determined by each governing authority with a minimum requirement that the Ten Commandments shall be displayed on a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches.  The text of the Ten Commandments shall be the central focus of the poster or framed document and shall be printed in a large, easily readable font.

A specified "context statement" that details the appearance of the Ten Commandments in public school textbooks since 1688 must be displayed along with the Ten Commandments. It permits, but does not require, public schools to also display the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance along with the Ten Commandments.

Public colleges must display the same text of the Ten Commandments (but apparently not the context statement) in each classroom on their campuses.

The bill's substantive provisions are preceded by legislative findings, including the following:

Recognizing the historical role of the Ten Commandments accords with our nation's history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to the necessity of civic morality to a functional self-government. History records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, stated that "(w)e have staked the whole future of our new nation . . . upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.

The bill now goes to Governor Jeff Landry for his signature. CNN reports on the bill.

UPDATE: On June 19, Governor Landry signed HB71, and the ACLU quickly announced that several advocacy organization would file suit to challenge the law.

Alabamans Approve 10 Commandments and Right To Life Amendments

Alabama voters yesterday approved two state constitutional amendments. By a margin of 78% to 22%, voters approved Amendment 1, officially described as follows:

First, it provides that a person is free to worship God as he or she chooses, and that a person’s religious beliefs will have no effect on his or her civil or political rights. Second, it makes clear that the Ten Commandments may be displayed on public property so long as the display meets constitutional requirements, such as being displayed along with historical or educational items. Amendment 1 also provides that no public funds may be used to defend this amendment in court.

Voters, by a margin of 59% to 41% approved Amendment 2, officially described as follows:

Amendment 2 provides that it would be the public policy of the state to recognize and support the importance of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life; and to protect the rights of unborn children. Additionally, the amendment would make clear that the state constitution does not include a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion using public funds.

The proposed amendment does not identify any specific actions or activities as unlawful. It expresses a public policy that supports broad protections for the rights of unborn children as long as the protections are lawful.

Ballot Issues To Watch In Tomorrow's Elections

Several ballot measures that may be of interest to Religion Clause readers will be voted on around the country tomorrow:

• Alabama Ten Commandments Amendment, Amendment 1
• Alabama State Abortion Policy Amendment, Amendment 2
• Oregon Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative
• West Virginia Amendment 1, the No Right to Abortion in Constitution Measure

Suit Challenges Arkansas Capitol Ten Commandments Monument

Suit was filed last month challenging the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument erected on the Arkansas state capitol grounds.  The complaint (full text) in Orsi v. Martin, (ED AR, filed 5/23/2018), alleges that the monument violates the Establishment Clause.  A press release from the American Humanist Association explains:

A similar monument was installed at the state capitol last year, only to be destroyed just hours after it was installed. The individual accused of destroying the display was subsequently found unfit to stand trial. Proponents of the display, led by state senator Jason Rapert, immediately began raising money for a replacement. Senator Rapert has publicly stated, “I am guilty as charged for supporting the Ten Commandments and… take full responsibility for being so bold as to believe that our state and our nation would be better off if people simply honored, followed and adhered to the Ten Commandments given by God Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai.”  Rapert’s effort reportedly raised $85,000, which will provide a protective barrier around the new display.

Oklahoma Legislature Passes 10 Commandments and "Stand Your Ground" In Church Laws

This week, the Oklahoma legislature sent two bills to Gov. Mary Fallin for her signature.  HB 2177 authorizes the display of the Ten Commandments and other historical documents on public property.  The bill (full text) provides in part:

Every county, municipality, city, town, school or any other political subdivision is authorized to display, in its public buildings and on its grounds, replicas of historical documents including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oklahoma Constitution and other historically significant documents in the form of statues, monuments, memorials, tablets or any other display that respects the dignity and solemnity of such documents. Such documents shall be displayed in a manner consistent with the context of other documents contained in such display.

In 2015, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a Ten Commandments monument on the statehouse grounds violates the Oklahoma Constitution. (See prior posting.)

The legislature also sent the Governor HB2632. The bill (full text) gives Oklahomans the same right in places of worship that they now have in homes and businesses to resist intruders by the use of deadly force. Tulsa World reports on the legislature's actions.

Alabama Legislature Approves Ballot Issue On Ten Commandments

The Alabama legislature yesterday approved S 181 (full text), submitting a proposed state constitutional amendment to the voters. The operative provisions of the proposed amendment read:

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his or her consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel. Property belonging to the state may be used to display the Ten Commandments, and the right of a public school and public body to display the Ten Commandments on property owned or administrated by a public school or public body in this state is not restrained or abridged. The civil and political rights, privileges, and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his or her religious belief. No public funds may be expended in defense of the constitutionality of this amendment.

The Ten Commandments shall be displayed in a manner that complies with constitutional requirements, including, but not limited to, being intermingled with historical or educational items, or both, in a larger display within or on property owned or administrated by a public school or public body.

The inclusion of the ban on using public funds to defend the constitutionality of the amendment is apparently a response to criticism from opponents that the amendment will merely invite costly lawsuits. (See AP report on the passage of the bill.)  Also, apparently the amendment is not intended to repeal the somewhat overlapping provisions of the existing Sections 3 , 3.01 (Amendment 622) and 263 of the state constitution. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

City Considering Crowdfunding To Pay Ten Commandments Litigation Costs

The Farmington Daily Times reports that the city of Bloomfield, New Mexico may take an unusual approach to paying the $700,000 attorneys' fees of the successful plaintiffs who sued it over a Ten Commandments monument. It is considering using an online crowdfunding site to raise the funds.  While Alliance Defending Freedom represented the city without charge in the litigation, now that the city has finally lost after a denial of review by the Supreme Court, it must pay the ACLU for the cost of representing plaintiffs in the litigation.  The amounts will have to come from the city's general funds if its crowdfunding initiative is unsuccessful.

Monument Challenges Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Levy County, (ND FL, Dec. 3, 2017), a Florida federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a challenge to a Ten Commandments monument in a courtyard outside county government buildings, as well as a challenge to the county's refusal to allow placement in the same area of a granite bench dedicated to non-believers.  Dismissing plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge to the Ten Commandments, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have failed to meet the injury-in-fact requirement because [plaintiff] Mr. Sparrow is unlikely to encounter the Monument in the future and because his only encounter with the Monument in the past was during a purposeful visit.

Dismissing an equal protection challenge to the refusal of a permit for the monument to atheists, the court held that "Plaintiffs lack standing because they have failed to show redressability."  Their proposal did not comply with guidelines for permissible monuments.  The court concluded:

Had counsel for Plaintiffs devoted more thought to these [standing] issues, then perhaps this Court could have addressed the merits of this dispute. But counsel didn’t, so this case must be dismissed for lack of standing.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In 10 Commandments Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Bloomfield, NM v. Felix, (Docket No. 17-60, cert. denied 10/16/2017) (Order List).  In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit found that a Ten Commandments monument on a city hall lawn violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The full 10th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges, denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release on the Supreme Court's denial of review.

Cert. Petition Filed In Ten Commandments Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Bloomfield v. Felix.  In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit found that a Ten Commandments monument on a city hall lawn violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The full 10th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges, denied en banc review.  (See prior posting.)  ADF issued a press release announcing the petition seeking Supreme Court review.

Man Destroys New 10 Commandments Monument At Arkansas Capitol

As previously reported, on Tuesday a 6-foot tall granite replica of the Ten Commandments was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol.  According to Arkansas Online, less than 24 hours later a 32-year old Arkansas man drove a vehicle into the monument, destroying it. Police have arrested Michael Tate Reed, charging him with defacing objects of public respect, trespassing on Capitol grounds and first-degree criminal mischief.  Reed apparently live streamed his actions on Facebook.  Apparently Reed is the same person who 3 years ago similarly destroyed a Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma statehouse grounds. (See prior posting.) State Senator Jason Rapert who sponsored the Arkansas legislation authorizing the monument says that a new monument has already been ordered.

Ten Commandments Monument Erected On Arkansas Statehouse Grounds

NPR News reports that yesterday a 6-foot tall granite replica of the Ten Commandments was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol.  In 2015, the state legislature enacted legislation authorizing the monument, to be financed privately. (See prior posting.)  State Senator Jason Rapert, the sponsor of the legislation, told reporters yesterday:

We have a beautiful Capitol grounds but we did not have a monument that actually honored the historical moral foundation of law. And today we have now, through the support of people all over the country, mostly from Arkansas, been able to erect this monument at zero taxpayer expense.

The ACLU says it will file suit to get the monument removed.

In Settlement, School Will Remove Ten Commandments Monument

The Freedom From Religion Foundation announced yesterday that it has reached a successful settlement with a Pennsylvania school district in FFRF's suit seeking removal of a 6-foot tall Ten Commandments monument from a high school's lawn. The settlement agreement (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District provides that the school district will remove the monument within 30 days of the effective date of the settlement agreement.  The school district's insurance company will also pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs of $163,500.  The suit, originally filed in 2012, went to the 3rd Circuit last year which upheld standing of at least some of the plaintiffs to bring the lawsuit. (See prior posting.)

10th Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing In 10 Commandments Case, With Dissent

In Felix v. City of Bloomfield, (10th Cir., Feb. 6, 2017), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing in a case in which the 3-judge panel found that a Ten Commandments monument on a city hall lawn violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Judge Kelly, joined by Judge Tymkovich, dissented from the denial of a rehearing in an opinion in which they argue for a dramatic re-examination of Establishment clause jurisprudence, saying in part:

This decision continues the error of our Establishment Clause cases. It does not align with the historical understanding of an “establishment of religion” and thus with what the First Amendment actually prohibits.

After an extensive examination of the history of the Establishment Clause, they say:

[T]he public display of memorials with historical significance should generally not be construed as an “establishment of religion,” even if one of the monuments also happens to be religious in nature.

10th Circuit: Ten Commandments Monument Violates Establishment Clause

In Felix v. City of Bloomfield, (10th Cir., Nov. 9, 2016), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court (see prior posting) that a Ten Commandments monument erected by a former city councilman on the Bloomfield, New Mexico city hall lawn violates the Establishment Clause. Among other things, the court held that plaintiffs who are polytheistic Wiccans demonstrated sufficient injury to have standing even though they only saw the monument and never read the text on it. The court went on to hold:

The apparent purpose and context of the Monument’s installation would give an objective observer the impression of official religious endorsement. In arriving at this conclusion, we examine the text of the Monument, its placement on the lawn, the circumstances of its financing and installation, and the timing of this litigation.

It held that disclaimers on and around the monument failed to "negate the more powerful statement of endorsement conveyed by a decision to place the Monument on government land." Nor did the later addition of a number of secular monuments cure the violation.

Plaintiff Dismisses Suit Against Maryland Ten Commandments Monument

Plaintiff in Davis v. Allegany County Commissioners, has filed a motion (full text) voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit challenging a Ten Commandments monument located on the courthouse lawn in Cumberland, Maryland. (See prior posting.) The court approved the motion to dismiss on Monday.  Plaintiff offered no reason for his decision to dismiss the suit.  ADF issued a press release reporting on the motion.

3rd Circuit: Some Plaintiffs Have Standing In Ten Commandments Challenge

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District, (3d Cir., Aug. 9, 2016), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a complicated opinion on standing in a suit in which a student, her mother and an advocacy organization are challenging a 6-foot tall Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of a Pennsylvania high school. The district court had dismissed, finding that all the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not been injured by the presence of the monument. (See prior posting.) The 3rd Circuit reversed in part, looking separately at each of the plaintiffs as well as considering the claim for an injunction separately from the claim for nominal damages. The 3rd Circuit held that the mother had standing to sue for nominal damages because

[her] allegations that the monument “signals that [she is] an outsider because [she] do[es] not follow the particular religion or god that the monument endorses,” ... and that her “stomach turned” when she encountered it, ... are sufficient to demonstrate that her contact with the monument was unwelcome.

On the other hand, the daughter did not because when she encountered the monument she was too young to understand it. The court went on to hold that both the mother and daughter have standing to sue for injunctive relief, even though the mother had sent her daughter to a different school because of the monument.  Its removal could lead to the daughter's return.  Finally the court said that the advocacy group's standing depends on whether the mother was a member at the time the suit was filed.

Judge Smith filed a lengthy opinion "concurring dubitante," saying:

I am doubtful that a claim for nominal damages alone suffices to create standing to seek backward-looking relief. While this issue has little practical importance to this case, it does have broad consequences for our standing and mootness inquiries in other scenarios.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for the lead.]