A federal appeals court has revived a Texas law that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, handing a major win to conservatives and setting up what could become the next big church and state fight at the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling came Tuesday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which split sharply over the issue and reversed a lower court order that had blocked the law.
The case centers on Texas Senate Bill 10, a 2025 law that requires a “conspicuous” copy of the Ten Commandments in every public school and charter school classroom in the state. The appeals court majority said the law does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and does not substantially burden families’ religious exercise.
Why the court ruled for Texas
In the majority opinion, the court said earlier legal reasoning built around the old Lemon test no longer controls this case. The judges pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and said that once Lemon is removed, the 1980 Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham no longer carries the same force it once did. The opinion states, “with Lemon extracted, there is nothing left of Stone.”
The majority also said the Texas law does not force students to pray, worship, or agree with the text on the wall. In the court’s words, the law “puts a poster on a classroom wall,” and the judges said that is far removed from the kind of religious establishment the First Amendment was meant to prevent.
Why opponents say the ruling is dangerous
Opponents say the court ignored binding Supreme Court precedent and opened the door to government backed religion in public schools. In a statement after the ruling, the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation said they were “extremely disappointed” and plan to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
The dissenting judges made a similar point inside the opinion. They argued that the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Stone v. Graham and said Texas is requiring children in mandatory school settings to sit in front of a sacred text every day. One dissenting section says the law threatens to undermine the beliefs parents want to teach their own children and pressures students to conform.
A narrow ruling with big national impact
News reports described the ruling as extremely close, reflecting just how divided the court was over the question. Reuters reported the vote as 9 to 7, while the Associated Press described it as 9 to 8, but both accounts agree the court was deeply split and that the decision revives the Texas mandate for now.
The case matters beyond Texas because similar Ten Commandments laws have been pushed in other Republican led states, including Louisiana and Arkansas. Legal observers say the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning could shape future battles over religion in public schools across the country.
What the law actually requires
Texas Senate Bill 10 requires public school classrooms to display a specific version of the Ten Commandments in a readable and visible format. According to the opinion, the law sets out the text and requires it to be posted in a “conspicuous place” so students can easily read it.
Supporters say that is a lawful recognition of history, not an act of religious coercion. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, and backers of the law argued that the Ten Commandments helped shape American legal traditions.
What happens next
The legal fight is almost certainly not over. The plaintiffs have already said they will seek Supreme Court review, and the case now lands at a moment when the high court has shown greater openness to religious expression in public life than in past decades.
For now, though, Texas has won an important round. The ruling means the state can move forward with a classroom display law that critics see as unconstitutional and supporters see as a restoration of moral and legal heritage. Readers can review the Fifth Circuit opinion and the ACLU response for the two sides of the case.