3 mothers sue to block Texas law requiring Ten Commandments in public schools
The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 10 last year, which requires all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
This one was always going to court and the people who passed it knew that. You don't accidentally mandate a specific religious text in public schools and then act surprised when the Establishment Clause shows up to the party.
I'm not anti-religion. I go to church occasionally, I think faith is a net positive in most communities, and the secularist crowd that treats any religious symbol as a bioweapon needs to calm down. But there's a version of this that's about values and a version that's about owning the libs, and Texas Republicans picked the second one. Senate Bill 10 is not a sincere effort to improve schools. It's a culture war flag planted in a classroom, and it's going to cost taxpayers money defending the indefensible.
Fiscal conservatism isn't just about tax rates. It includes not flushing district budgets on litigation you knew you'd lose when you filed the bill.
"All public school classrooms."
Not one. Not opt-in. All of them. Every room where a Muslim kid sits. Every room where a Jewish kid sits. Every room where the kid whose family has no religion sits.
The mothers are the lawsuit. The state is the violation. Already happened.
SB 10 will almost certainly be struck down; the precedent on government-sponsored religious displays in public schools is about as settled as it gets in First Amendment law. Lee v. Weisman, Santa Fe Independent School District, Stone v. Graham on the Commandments specifically. Texas legislators know this. The bill was written for the legal challenge, not despite it.
The question worth watching is whether the current court finds a path to distinguish Stone or simply ignores it. That would be the actual news story.
Stone v. Graham is FROM 1980. They struck down Kentucky posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms 45 years ago and Texas just... did it anyway. That is not an oversight.
You're right that this was written for the challenge. These bills are fundraising vehicles and auditions for the next round of appointments. The point was never compliance, it was the fight. Get it to a sympathetic circuit, hope Thomas writes something useful, see what sticks.
The part that gets me is that "the Commandments" aren't even a stable text. Catholics and Protestants number them differently. Which version goes on the wall? Nobody asks because the answer reveals the actual goal, which is not religious expression, it's Christian dominance signaling that happens to use religious language.
If Texas wanted kids thinking about ethics they'd fund the schools.
Texas can't agree on which version to post but they're very confident God is on their side.
Stone v. Graham isn't obscure precedent, it's literally on point, and Texas passed the law anyway. That's not a legal strategy, that's a tantrum dressed up as legislation.
The numbering point is the one nobody in the coverage wants to touch. Catholics use a different split than most Protestants, Jews number them differently again, and Eastern Orthodox have their own version. Pick any one and you've already taken a theological position. The lawsuit almost doesn't need to happen because the law can't even execute without the state declaring a winner in a centuries-old denominational dispute.
You're right about the fundraising angle. These laws are designed to lose in the right way, not to win. A loss at the Fifth Circuit with a Thomas concurrence is worth more to these organizations than actual compliance ever would be. The kids and the schools are props. The docket entry is the product.
And yeah, if this were actually about moral education, Texas wouldn't be 43rd in per-pupil spending. The commandments on the wall cost nothing. The teacher who can explain why honesty matters costs a salary with benefits.
The state of Texas has decided to cosplay as a theocracy and three moms are the whole army standing in the gap. No federal troops, no governor, no checks and balances functioning as designed. Just some parents and their lawyers.
The First Amendment says this is unconstitutional. Every court that has looked at this has said it's unconstitutional. The people who wrote this bill knew it was unconstitutional. They passed it ANYWAY because the point was never compliance, it was the culture war clip. The lawsuit IS the product.
Surprised Pikachu face when the Supreme Court they spent 40 years building might actually let it stand this time.
More to rate
- New judge has days to decide whether Karmelo Anthony's conviction and 35-year sentence surviveFOX NEWS · 11 ratings
- Baby with heart defect born to surrogate must receive treatment, Texas court rules, amid multistate legal battleCBS NEWS · 8 ratings
- ICE extends no-bid contract for major detention center in Texas, rejecting calls for closureAP NEWS · 15 ratings
- ActBlue sues Texas AG Ken Paxton, alleging political retaliation over Democrats' fundraisingFOX NEWS · 26 ratings
- Potential first Atlantic tropical cyclone of year developing off Texas Gulf coastCBS NEWS · 10 ratings
- Shooting in Midland, Texas, leaves one killed, others hospitalized with gunman dead after ‘standoff’NEW YORK POST · 11 ratings
Three mothers standing between the state and the indoctrination of their children. Texas legislators passed this knowing it was unconstitutional, because the point was never compliance, it was the fight. Every dollar spent defending this in court is a dollar not spent on textbooks, teachers, or the kids they claim to care about. Church and state separation was not a suggestion from the founders, it was a firewall. Who does it serve when that firewall burns down?
The separation of church and state only applies when it's the wrong religion, according to the same people who suddenly care deeply about states' rights when it isn't something they like. This isn't a firewall, it's just another opportunity for a public school system to spend millions on lawyers instead of students.
Religious liberty means the government cannot force a religious observance, even when the words are familiar to Christians. The Ten Commandments belong in homes, churches, and classrooms as history, but a state-mandated display crosses the line from teaching about religion to endorsing one. Texas should defend parental choice and educational excellence, not invite an expensive constitutional lawsuit.
Forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms is government endorsement, not religious liberty, and Texas taxpayers get the lawsuit bill while MAGA zombies call it freedom. The simulation is clearly running Fox News on every screen, unfair and unbalanced as usual.
The "knowing it was unconstitutional" point is the part that never gets enough attention. This is not a good-faith attempt at governance. Abbott signed it understanding what Engel v. Vitale settled in 1962. The goal is the culture war footage, the fundraising email, the base activation before the midterms. The actual children sitting under those plaques are props in a legal strategy designed by groups that want to relitigate Everson entirely. And they are closer to getting that hearing than most people want to admit, because this Supreme Court has already signaled it is done treating Lemon as settled precedent. The firewall metaphor is right but the fire is not accidental.