Appeals court extends hold on Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana’s plan to make all of the state’s public school classrooms post the Ten Commandments remains blocked under an order Wednesday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state request to temporarily stay an earlier order by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge while litigation continues. DeGravelles ruled that the law, which the Republican-dominated Legislature passed earlier this year, was “overtly religious” and “unconstitutional on its face.” He also said it amounted to unconstitutional religious government coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the bill into law in June, prompting a group of Louisiana public school parents of different faiths to sue. They argue the law violates the First Amendment’s provisions forbidding the government from establishing a religion or blocking the free exercise of it. They also say the proposed poster-sized display would isolate students, especially those who are not Christian. The parents further argue that the version of the Ten Commandments specified in the law is favored by many protestants and doesn’t match any version found in Jewish tradition.
Proponents say the Ten Commandments are not solely religious, but have a historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law. Republican state Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said after deGravelles ruled that she disagreed with his findings and that the law is constitutional under Supreme Court precedents.
In recent years, similar bills requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms have been proposed in states including Texas, Oklahoma and Utah. None have passed.
Trending News
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment establishment clause, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but rather served a plainly religious one.