Louisiana Ten Commandments law ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Friday that Louisiana's law to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms is unconstitutional.
Louisiana became the first state in the nation to pass the bill requiring public schools and universities to display the Ten Commandments in the 2024 regular legislative session. The law stated that it would be displayed with a large, readable font on an 11-by-14-inch poster or framed document.
'We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit's affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court,' Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement.
'The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws—serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms. I fully support Attorney General Murrill's decision to seek an en banc panel to review the decision,' said Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry.
Timeline of Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law:
June 19, 2024: A bill requiring public schools and universities to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms was passed during the 2024 Regular Legislative Session.
June 24, 2024: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit claiming the law violated students' First Amendment rights. Some religious leaders and activists also voiced opposition to the law.
Aug. 5, 2024: Murrill called for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing it was premature and that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate actual harm.
July 19, 2024: Louisiana agreed to pause implementation of the law until a hearing could be held, initially scheduled for Nov. 15.
Oct. 21, 2024: A hearing debated whether the law should go into effect while its constitutionality is litigated. The preliminary injunction allowed arguments on both sides regarding the posting of the Commandments.
Nov. 12, 2024: A federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional, prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments in schools.
Dec. 11, 2024: Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed an opening brief to defend Louisiana's Ten Commandments law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 23, 2025: Oral arguments held in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to address the state's appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Can public money flow to Catholic charter school? The Supreme Court will decide
US Senator Bill Cassidy take steps to ensure public's trust in vaccines
Supreme Court approves swift deportation Under Trump Policy
Baton Rouge Police Chief shares vision for safer community as crime rate drops
Our Lady of the Lake showcases newest surgical technology
Suspect arrested, accused of shooting man after an argument in Baton Rouge
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Smerconish: Trump is on a Roll - Smerconish on CNN - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Smerconish: Trump is on a Roll Smerconish on CNN 44 mins CNN Michael Smerconish weighs in on the recent victories for the Trump administration this week. Then, David Urban, a former Trump Campaign adviser, and Xochitl Hinojosa, a former DNC communications director, join Smerconish to discuss how the American public is reacting to Trump's latest wins. Plus, Andrew Daniller, a Pew Research Associate, shares his latest research on how non-voters would have influenced the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. And, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a blockbuster decision to limit judges' from issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkely Law School, weighs in on the court's decision.
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas porn age verification law restarts fight with similar Florida legislation
In a ruling that has implications for a battle over a similar Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification for access to websites with pornographic content. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — "have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online." As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing "supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs' claims." What the Supreme Court decision says Friday's majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws "fall within states' authority to shield children from sexually explicit content." "The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective," said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age." But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content. "Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech," Kagan wrote. "But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults' First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults' access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children." Where does Florida's law stand now after the ruling? Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case. The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors." It defines "substantial portion" as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app. In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to "verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age." The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it "demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for." The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children. In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday's opinion about the Texas law.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
New Jersey AG ‘confident' in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in a 22-state lawsuit against President Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship, said Saturday he was 'confident' the order could still be blocked nationwide following a Friday Supreme Court ruling that broadly restricted the ability of the court system to halt the president's policies. 'There's a whole range of administrative challenges that would make this completely unworkable, which is why I'm confident we'll get the nationwide relief we've sought when we go back to the lower courts,' Platkin said in an MSNBC appearance. The nation's highest court ruled Friday that Trump's executive order could be partially enforced because lower-court judges had exceeded their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, but still drastically limited a judicial tool that has been used for decades, including to block federal policies from multiple presidential administrations. New Jersey is one of 22 Democratic-led states, along with a group of expectant mothers and immigration organizations, that sued to block the executive order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The injunctions issued by three federal judges in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts in the ensuing months granted relief not just to those plaintiffs, but everyone in the country. That move, the Supreme Court majority said Friday, was unconstitutional. Instead, injunctions should be narrowly tailored to provide 'complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' The lower courts will now get the first attempt at tailoring injunctions to comply with the ruling. On MSNBC, Platkin contended that 'complete relief' to the states harmed by the executive order would still involve blocking the executive order across the country. 'It would be impossible to administer a system of citizenship based on which state you live in,' he said. The suits of the non-state plaintiffs, meanwhile, were quickly refashioned into class-action lawsuits, a legal route that Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted could provide broader relief against the birthright citizenship order in her majority opinion. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days while the courts and parties sort out the next steps.
