The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Roake v. Brumley on Thursday over a Louisiana bill mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in the state’s public schools.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of public school parents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the appeals court should uphold an injunction against the bill on the grounds that it violates the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment.
“We have Christians, we have Jews, and they are all—those who chose to bring this case—united in the concern that their children will be coerced,” said Jonathan Youngwood, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “Many of our clients believe in the Ten Commandments, but they believe it’s their job to teach their children about the Ten Commandments, not the job of the state.
In June, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed H.B.71 into law, mandating that a copy of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom in the state. In November, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed with the plaintiffs to place an injunction on the law.
Proponents of the legislation argue that the Ten Commandments are an integral part of America’s cultural and legal heritage and that their display does not infringe on the religious liberties of anyone.
“According to the ACLU, religious symbols are so radioactive that students can’t be anywhere near them,” wrote Joseph Davis, a senior counsel at Becket, which is supporting the state of Louisiana. “That view is absurd and utterly divorced from history—religion has been a natural and welcome part of our American public life since the founding.”
Benjamin Aguiñaga, the Louisiana solicitor general, argued procedurally that the plaintiffs lack standing and their case lacks ripeness.
“Plaintiffs seek to challenge hypothetical displays that do not exist and that they have never seen,” Aguiñaga told the court.
On the merits, Aguiñaga said that the plaintiffs had to prove that displaying the Ten Commandments would violate the First Amendment in every instance and had failed to do so.
“Plaintiffs are free to try to make their challenge about particular kinds of classrooms, but this is a facial challenge,” Aguiñaga said. “They have to prove to you that even in LSU’s biggest student auditorium that somehow an H.B.71 display is unconstitutional.”
According to the Torah, God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai and gave them to him as two tablets written on stone. (After he broke the first set, Moses received a second pair.) Both Christians and Jews adhere to the Ten Commandments, but religious groups differ on how they ought to be divided and numbered.
The plaintiffs argue that the version of the commandments mandated by H.B.71 is distinctly Protestant.
The bill’s version “does not match any version or translation found in the Jewish tradition,” the original complaint reads.
“The version of the Ten Commandments mandated in H.B.71 omits key language and context that is included in the version set forth in the Torah,” it states. “For example, it is missing the important message in the Jewish story about God bringing the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery to freedom. It also summarizes other commandments instead of including the text as found in the Torah in its entirety.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has made differing rulings about the state displaying the Ten Commandments.
In 1980, the court ruled in Stone v. Graham that a Kentucky law similar to H.B.71 mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms was unconstitutional because it lacked a “secular legislative purpose” as required by the 1971 ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman.
In a pair of 2005 cases, the high court reached differing conclusions about the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments, holding that it was allowed if placed in a historical and social context and forbidden if displayed in isolation or for a religious purpose.
According to Becket, a decision in the case is expected by the spring.