No Ten Commandments in School: A Closer Look at the Law

Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Ten Commandments Law, Ignoring First Amendment Test

The Fifth Circuit’s latest ruling keeps a Texas law that requires Ten Commandments posters in public schools. The court argues the displays do not violate the First Amendment, citing that the law would have existed in 1791 when the Constitution was drafted.

The First Amendment’s establishment clause is designed to prevent government coercion into religious belief or the use of public funds for religion. By mandating a religious text in every classroom, the law forces students to confront a specific set of rules with religious connotations. Even though the posters are inexpensive, they are funded by taxpayers’ dollars—an expense the clause explicitly forbids.

In 1980, the Supreme Court’s Stone v. Graham held that Ten Commandments displays in schools violated the establishment clause because they lacked a secular purpose. That decision relied on the “secular‑purpose” test, which later courts replaced with a “historical practices” approach following the 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton case. The Texas law, enacted in 2025, was therefore defended by the Fifth Circuit on the grounds that Stone had been overruled.

However, only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent, and it has yet to strike down Stone. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning fails to acknowledge the clause’s core aim: shielding citizens from religious coercion and prohibiting public funding of religion. The court also overlooked that the law uses state money to purchase posters, directly contravening the “no money” principle.

While the court attempted to separate the Ten Commandments posters from mandatory prayer, both elements place students in a daily religious environment. The law ignores the absence of any historical tradition of mandatory religious displays in public schools—a tradition that safeguards America’s religious diversity. Allowing one set of religious text opens the door for others, potentially leading to conflict and division.

In summary, the ruling sidesteps critical aspects of the establishment clause. It treats a religious display as neutral when it is coercive and disregards the taxpayer burden. The Supreme Court may need to intervene to realign the law with its original intent: maintaining a clear separation between government and religion.