Federal Court Upholds Ten Commandments Law in Texas Classrooms

Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes

A major legal battle over religion in public schools has taken a decisive turn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), authored by State Sen. Phil King (R-Weatherford), which requires the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, does not violate the First Amendment. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the law and cleared the way for its implementation across the state.

State leadership quickly framed the ruling as both a legal and cultural victory.

Governor Greg Abbott (R) called the decision a “HUGE WIN,” adding that “the foundation of Western law and morality belongs in our classrooms” and emphasizing that “Texas stands for faith, freedom, and the values that founded our great state.” Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R), who made the bill a legislative priority, described the ruling as “a great day for those who believe in the Word of God,” while reaffirming his broader commitment to advancing religious liberty policy. Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) struck a more institutional tone, calling it a “big win for Texas and the Constitution,” and arguing the decision confirms that the law is “consistent with our nation’s history and constitutional principles.” Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), whose office defended the law in court, described the outcome as “a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” adding that the Ten Commandments have had a “profound impact on our nation” and should remain visible to students.

These reactions underscore what this case has always been about. It is not just a legal dispute, but a broader debate over history, morality, and the role of religion in public life.

The case centered on whether the law constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion or improperly burdens the religious freedom of students and families. The court answered both questions in the negative, allowing Texas to move forward.

At its core, SB 10 requires that every public school classroom display a specific version of the Ten Commandments in a visible format. The statute also allows schools to accept privately donated displays or purchase them using public funds. This ruling is not just about classroom posters. It signals a broader shift in how courts interpret the relationship between religion and government.

A Key Legal Takeaway Includes a Shift Away from the Lemon Test

The most consequential aspect of the ruling is not the outcome itself but the legal framework used to reach it.

For decades, courts relied on the Lemon test, a three-part standard that asked whether a law had a secular purpose, whether it advanced religion, and whether it created excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Fifth Circuit made clear that this framework is no longer controlling. Instead, the court emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court has moved toward a “history and tradition” approach. Under this standard, the key question is whether a challenged law resembles the kind of religious establishment that existed at the time of the founding of the country.

That shift is significant. It fundamentally changes how Establishment Clause cases are evaluated and narrows the scope of what is considered unconstitutional.

What the Court Said About “Establishment of Religion”

The court grounded its analysis in historical understanding. An “establishment of religion,” as understood in the founding era, involved features such as government control over churches, compulsory attendance at religious services, punishment of dissenters, and forced financial support of clergy.

The court concluded that SB 10 does none of those things. According to the ruling, the law does not compel students to pray, adopt religious beliefs, or participate in religious activity. It simply requires the display of text.

That distinction was central. The court viewed the display as passive rather than coercive, and therefore outside the historical definition of an establishment.

Where the Line Is Drawn on the Coercion Standard

Opponents of the law argued that placing religious text in classrooms inherently pressures students, especially given mandatory attendance laws. The court rejected that argument.

It drew a clear line between exposure to religious ideas and coercion into religious practice. The ruling emphasized that coercion, in constitutional terms, means forcing participation in religious exercise, such as prayer or worship. Because SB 10 does not require students to engage in any religious activity, the court found no coercion.

This is a narrower interpretation than what some prior cases suggested, particularly in the public school context.

---

---

Free Exercise Claims Also Rejected

The plaintiffs also argued that the law interferes with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing. The court dismissed this claim as well.

It contrasted SB 10 with cases where schools actively taught or promoted specific viewpoints that conflicted with students’ religious beliefs. In those cases, the government was seen as shaping or undermining belief. Here, the court found no such interference.

The displays do not involve instruction, do not require affirmation, and do not direct teachers to promote any religious viewpoint. As a result, the court concluded there is no substantial burden on religious exercise.

The Role of Stone v. Graham and Why It Matters

A major point of contention in the case was the relevance of a 1980 Supreme Court decision, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar law in Kentucky. The Fifth Circuit effectively sidelined that precedent.

The court argued that Stone relied entirely on the now-abandoned Lemon test. Because the Supreme Court has moved away from that framework, the reasoning behind Stone no longer controls. This is one of the most controversial aspects of the ruling.

Critics argue that lower courts should not disregard Supreme Court precedent unless it is explicitly overturned. Supporters argue that when the underlying legal framework is abandoned, prior decisions built on that framework lose their force.

This tension is likely to be a central issue if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

How This Aligns With Texas Policy Research Analysis

Texas Policy Research (TPR) remained neutral on SB 10 as it was moving through the legislative process in the 89th Legislative Session (2025), noting both constitutional concerns and historical arguments in favor of the display.

That analysis highlighted several key factors.

First, the bill mandates the display of religious text without requiring instructional context, raising questions about its purpose and potential legal challenges. Second, it allows private donations to fund the displays, which reduces direct taxpayer involvement but does not eliminate constitutional scrutiny. Third, it reflects an ongoing national debate about the role of religious heritage in public institutions.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling largely aligns with the historical argument outlined in that analysis. It places a heavy weight on tradition and rejects broader interpretations of coercion and establishment.

At the same time, the concerns raised about litigation risk and constitutional uncertainty have proven well-founded. The issue is far from settled.

What Happens Next for SB 10

The ruling is a major victory for supporters of the law, but it is unlikely to be the final word.

The decision can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the broader constitutional questions would be resolved definitively. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will have an opportunity to clarify several unresolved issues. Those include the continued validity of older Establishment Clause precedents, the scope of the history and tradition test, and how coercion is defined in the public school context.

In the meantime, the ruling allows Texas schools to move forward with implementation.

Broader Implications for Texas Education Policy

This case is about more than the Ten Commandments. It reflects a broader shift in constitutional interpretation that could affect a wide range of policy areas, including education, religious liberty, and the role of historical tradition in lawmaking.

For Texas lawmakers, the decision may encourage additional legislation that relies on historical or cultural arguments rather than strictly secular ones. For school districts, it raises practical questions about compliance, community response, and potential legal exposure.

And for parents and students, it underscores the ongoing tension between public education and deeply held personal beliefs.

A Defining Moment in Church-State Jurisprudence

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling represents a turning point.

By embracing a history-based approach and rejecting older legal frameworks, the court has reshaped how Establishment Clause cases are analyzed, at least within its jurisdiction. Whether that approach ultimately holds will depend on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But for now, Texas Senate Bill 10 stands, and with it, a new chapter in the debate over religion, education, and the Constitution.

---