Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink
Follow
A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional.
The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian.
The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of US law.
'This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,' said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.'
The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit.
'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the US Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. 'Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.'
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit. Murrill added that she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
The panel of judges reviewing the case was unusually liberal for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in the ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The court's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.
The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by US District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June.
Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal.
'The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,' Landry said.
Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the US Supreme Court, testing the court on the issue of religion and government.
Similar laws have been challenged in court.
A group of Arkansas families filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging a near-identical law passed in their state. And comparable legislation in Texas currently awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.
And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate heads home with no deal to speed confirmations as irate Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is leaving Washington Saturday night for its monthlong August recess without a deal to advance dozens of President Donald Trump's nominees, calling it quits after days of contentious bipartisan negotiations and Donald Trump posting on social media that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer can 'GO TO HELL!' Without a deal in hand, Republicans say they may try to change Senate rules when they return in September to speed up the pace of confirmations. Trump has been pressuring senators to move quickly as Democrats blocked more nominees than usual this year, denying any fast unanimous consent votes and forcing roll calls on each one, a lengthy process that can take several days per nominee. 'I think they're desperately in need of change," Senate Majority Leader John Thune said of Senate rules Saturday after negotiations with Chuck Schumer and Trump broke down. "I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' The latest standoff comes as Democrats and Republicans have gradually escalated their obstruction of the other party's executive branch and judicial nominees over the last two decades, and as Senate leaders have incrementally changed Senate rules to speed up confirmations — and make them less bipartisan. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Trump has been pressuring Senate Republicans for weeks to cancel the August recess and grind through dozens of his nominations as Democrats have slowed the process. But Republicans hoped to make a deal with Democrats instead, and came close several times over the last few days as the two parties and the White House negotiated over moving a large tranche of nominees in exchange for reversing some of the Trump administration's spending cuts on foreign aid, among other issues. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told them to pack it up and go home. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country.' Thune said afterward that there were 'several different times' when the two sides thought they had a deal, but in the end 'we didn't close it out.' It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump's nominees as possible. But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation. 'We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,' Schumer said Saturday.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Our View: Republicans, Democrats scheming on mid-term elections
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong that at the urging of President Trump, Texas Republicans are scheming to redrawn political boundaries to dilute the power of minorities and Democratic voters in next year's mid-term elections. It's wrong that California Democrats, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, now are scheming to usurp the will of California voters and reshape the state's political boundaries to block Texas Republicans from gaming the congressional elections. For many, this may seem like boring insider political baseball. But the scheming shows how politicians care less about the people they represent at home and more about retaining the power of their political parties — Republican and Democratic — in Washington. The scheming we now see is a shameful corruption of democracy and the electoral system politicians claim they support. At its heart is control of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has 435 members — each representing about the same number of constituents. Every 10 years, after completion of a U.S. Census, allocation of a state's share of House seats is decided and the political boundary lines of congressional districts within the states are adjusted. In most states, such as Texas, state politicians and their donor buddies scheme on adjusting district boundary lines to protect incumbents and assure a political party's election. That's called gerrymandering. Texas Republicans are not waiting for the next 10-year census to redraw district lines. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called the Republican-dominated Legislature back into a special session to consider a new political map that shifts district lines and is designed to elect more Republicans to Congress. If all goes as the schemers hope, Texas Republicans could pick up five additional seats in next year's mid-term elections. That would be a big deal in the House, where Republicans now hold a slim majority. Democratic takeover of the House would apply the brakes on Trump's controversial agenda. And that's where California Gov. Newsom comes in. He's scheming on a plan to fight fire with fire. Redraw California's political boundary lines before next year's mid-term elections to advantage Democratic candidates. That could shrink California's nine-member Republican delegation to three or four. But there is a catch. In 2010, California voters, who were fed up with self-dealing politicians, overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure that created a bipartisan independent redistricting commission. No longer could the state's politicians draw their own district lines. In 2011 and 2021, the commission drew district lines, with a focus on creating competitive districts, within coherent geographic areas, containing voters with shared interests, and providing representations for minority communities. Both Democratic and Republican parties, refusing to quietly give up their power, strongly opposed creation of a bipartisan independent commission in 2010. To accomplish his mid-term scheme, Newsom would have to quickly call a statewide special election — at a cost of what some estimate to be $200 million — and ask voters to return redistricting power to self-serving politicians. Fat chance voters would go along with that. As an alternative, Newsom and his co-conspirators are considering crawling through an imaginary loophole in the law that created the bipartisan independent redistricting commission. They reason that since the law voters created only called for an independent commission to set political district lines after a U.S. Census every 10 years, the Legislature is free to undo the commission's work in the years between — drawing legislators' own self-serving lines. Good luck with that. Let the lawsuits begin! Warning: This threatened gerrymandering war — which could expand to other states — may blow up in both Democratic and Republican party faces. Voters are not as dumb as politicians think they are. They can spot election cheating when they see it. Like it or not, the balance of power in Washington should be decided by voters at the ballot box, not schemers in the backroom. If we believe in the electoral system that is the foundation of our democracy, we must trust voters. California's legislators will return to Sacramento after a summer break in a couple of weeks. Hopefully Democrats then also will return to their good senses.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dishman party change creates Republican majority on Muncie City Council
MUNCIE, IN — Jerry Dishman, in his fifth term representing District 5 on Muncie City Council, has announced he is leaving the local Democratic Party and becoming a Republican. Dishman's party change — announced on Saturday, Aug. 2 — gives Republicans a 5-4 majority on the council. Dishman — the longest-serving member on the current council — became the second council Democrat in recent weeks to change his party affiliation. In June, council member Brandon Garrett also announced he was becoming a Republican. In a statement released on Saturday, Dishman said he "did a lot of soul searching and also spent multiple hours speaking with many trusted and valued friends from both sides of the aisle" before making his decision to change parties. Dishman, first elected to the council in 2005, said most of those he spoke to "merely confirmed what I already knew to be the right move." "I have been a moderate Democrat my entire life," he said. "However, the local Democrat Party has gone, in my opinion, to the far left and no longer aligns with my values and beliefs." Dishman became the third local public official to change parties since Andrew Dale was elected Democratic Party chairman in March. In April, Eric Hoffman elected Delaware County prosecutor as a Democrat in 2018 and 2022, announced he would seek a third term in 2026 as a Republican. On Saturday, Democratic chairman Dale said he was not surprised by Dishman's announcement. He released an open letter he had sent to Dishman that said the city council member had not returned messages Dale sent via voicemail, e-mails and text messages since March. "I now read that you believe the local Democratic Party is disproportionally progressive," Dale wrote. "I don't share that assertion because I know that's factually untrue." Dale said his party is "an organization made up of a blended group of people who believe in supporting the U.S. Constitution, upholding the laws which serve as the guardrails for our society." The Democratic chairman also said "at-large and marginalized communities should be cared for and protected and nurtured to an extent where fear is exchanged for hope." Dale said what Dishman has "signed up for (as a Republican) is not what the Delaware County Democratic Party believes." Not surprisingly, Dale's Republican counterpart, Tim Overton, was more upbeat about Dishman's party change. The Republican chairman said Dishman "brings with him a distinguished record of public service, a lifetime of wisdom, strong relationships, and proven effectiveness that will strengthen our shared efforts." "With Mayor Dan Ridenour, the city council and Republican county leadership now aligned, we are uniquely positioned to partner more effectively than ever before," Overton said. He said a "common vision" focused on making Muncie "a safe, thriving community where families flourish and future generations choose to stay." Since Republican David Dominick unseated two-term Democratic Mayor James P. Carey in 1991, Republicans have won six of eight Muncie mayoral elections. However, until Dishman's announcement on Saturday, the past 34 years have seen local Democrats retain a majority on Muncie City Council. Roger Overbey, a former Democratic city council member, attended Saturday's event that saw Dishman announce his party change and posed for photos with his former council colleague. Douglas Walker is a news reporter for The Star Press. Contact him at 765-213-5851 or at dwalker@ This article originally appeared on Muncie Star Press: Council member Dishman leaves Democrats, joins Republicans
