5th Circuit Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Ten Commandments in Public Classrooms

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April 21, 2026, that Texas may require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a 9-7 decision, the court upheld Senate Bill 10, reversing a previous lower court injunction that had blocked the law in 11 school districts. The ruling sets the stage for a high-stakes legal challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Details

The court's decision centers on Senate Bill 10, a law enacted in June 2025 and signed by Governor Greg Abbott. The statute requires all elementary and secondary public school classrooms to display donated posters of the Ten Commandments, which must be at least 16 by 20 inches and placed in a visible location. The law originally took effect on September 1, 2025, but its implementation was hampered by legal challenges.

Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and seven other judges. The majority argued that the requirement does not coerce religious practice, stating that the law does not dictate how houses of worship should operate nor does it punish those who reject the commandments. Judge Duncan wrote that the display 'punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason.'

Conversely, the ruling was sharply contested by the minority. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez argued in her dissent that the court remained bound by existing legal precedents. The challengers in the case—comprising 16 multifaith and nonreligious families represented by the ACLU of Texas and other civil rights groups—contend that the mandate violates the First Amendment. Attorney Jon Youngwood stated that the decision 'tramples' the rights of families to choose their children's religious instruction.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling as 'a major victory for Texas and our moral values,' asserting that the Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on the nation and that students should learn from them daily. The legal proceedings, titled Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, involved all 17 active judges on the 5th Circuit, 12 of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.

Context

The core of the legal dispute rests on the interpretation of Stone v. Graham, a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that found a similar law in Kentucky unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit majority concluded that Stone v. Graham is no longer valid because the Supreme Court has since abandoned the 'Lemon test,' a long-standing legal framework used to determine if a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This ruling follows a broader regional trend. In February 2026, the 5th Circuit cleared the way for a similar Ten Commandments display law in Louisiana with a 12-6 vote. Additionally, Arkansas has enacted a similar law that is currently being challenged in federal court.

Historically, the Supreme Court has taken a nuanced approach to religious displays. In 2005, the Court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol, while simultaneously striking down similar displays in Kentucky courthouses. This distinction between legislative settings and school classrooms has been the primary point of contention in the current litigation.

What's Next

The families and civil rights organizations challenging the law have announced plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 5th Circuit's decision. Given the direct conflict with the 1980 Stone v. Graham precedent and the current composition of the high court, the case is expected to be a pivotal test of church-state separation in the 21st century.

Beyond the immediate appeal, Attorney General Ken Paxton has already threatened legal action against school districts that refuse to comply with Senate Bill 10, including filing lawsuits against at least three districts. Two other separate lawsuits challenging the law remain pending in court.

The final resolution will likely hinge on whether the Supreme Court officially confirms that the abandonment of the Lemon test effectively nullifies the protections established in Stone v. Graham, potentially opening the door for similar mandates across other states.