Judge grants injunction in Ten Commandments case

A group of parents and religious leaders filed a lawsuit against 11 school districts in Texas to challenge a statute requiring the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In doing so, they filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the statute and displays of the Ten Commandments in the classrooms.

In deciding whether or not to grant the motion, the judge in a federal court in San Antonio began his analysis by noting that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The court noted that this requirement extends to state legislatures by virtue of the 14th Amendment. There has been a significant amount of litigation about the expression of religion in public schools, and the court determined that, based on those cases, there were two issues that it needed to address, namely:

1. Did the law merely "expose" students to a religious belief, or did it amount to "coercion"? and
2. How do previously decided court rulings impact this case?

The plaintiffs testified that they believe in a wide range of religious and non-religious views, including Unitarian Universalism, Judaism, Reform Judaism, Presbyterian Christianity, atheism, non-religiousness and agnostic atheism. They argued that the version of the Ten Commandments set out in the Texas law, set to take effect Sept. 1, differs from the version observed by some Protestant faiths, and most adherents of the Catholic and Jewish faiths. They further argued that many other religions do not regard the Ten Commandments as part of their belief systems at all. They argued that the law would harm them and their children because it would:

1. Forcibly subject their children to religious doctrine and beliefs in a manner that conflicts with their families' religious and non-religious beliefs and practices;
2. Send a marginalizing message to the children and their families that they do not belong in their own school community because they do not subscribe to the state's preferred religious text;
3. Religiously coerce their children by pressuring them to observe, meditate on, venerate, and follow the state's favored religious text, and by pressuring them to suppress expression of their own religious or nonreligious beliefs and backgrounds at school; and
4. Interfere with the religious development of their children and threaten to undermine the beliefs, practices, and values regarding matters of faith the parents wish to instill in their children, thereby usurping the parents' authority to direct their children's religious education and religious or nonreligious upbringing.

In support of these allegations, several parents of various faiths presented testimony as to why they believe that viewing the Ten Commandments as outlined in the law will forcibly expose their children to views that conflict with their own. Some examples include:

1. Jewish parents objected to the display of the Ten Commandments because the law requires posting a specific version to which their families do not subscribe, in a manner that is contrary to Jewish teachings and their faith. For example, the commandment pertaining to the Sabbath leaves out Torah text that compels Jews to observe the Sabbath from Friday evening through Saturday evening. They said this is a central commandment for Jews, and the version required by the Texas law misrepresents it.
2. A Christian family testified that they object to the display because it includes references to "adultery" and "coveting" a neighbor's "manservant" or "maidservant." They believe that their children are too young to understand what these references mean, and do not want their children to be exposed to, or instructed on, these concepts at school. Rather, they want to teach their children about these concepts according to their faith and when they believe the children are ready.
3. A Baptist family testified that the Baptist church does not emphasize the full Ten Commandments to children and instead emphasizes the commands of Jesus: to love God and to love our neighbors just as we love ourselves. While the Ten Commandments are part of the text that Baptists hold sacred, the family said they are not the central focus of the Baptist faith. The family testified that they believe the displays will emphasize the Ten Commandments as a pillar of faith and American citizenship, in a way that conflicts with their family's faith.

The court then examined the applicable law, noting initially that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the posting of the biblical Ten Commandments on a public school wall is unconstitutional. It then noted that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that a Louisiana law that required posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls was also unconstitutional. Opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit are binding on Texas courts.

The federal district court judge concluded by noting that "even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer." 

His ruling held that the Supreme Court and Louisiana cases were binding on it and that the parents had demonstrated that their children would be harmed or feel coerced to express religious beliefs that conflicted with their family values. Therefore, the judge granted the motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Ten Commandments law in the 11 school districts named in the lawsuit. A list of those districts may be found here. The final disposition of this case will be determined based on further litigation.

A separate lawsuit filed against the Ten Commandments law in a federal court in Dallas is also pending. TCTA members with questions about the new law and its enforcement in their district should call TCTA's legal department to speak with a staff attorney.