Court extends suspension of Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments in classrooms

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana’s plan to have the Ten Commandments posted in all public school classrooms in the state remains blocked under an order issued Wednesday by the federal appeals court in New Orleans.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects state’s request for temporary stay order early by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge while the case is pending. DeGravelles ruled that the law, which the Republican-dominated Legislature passed earlier this year, was “manifestly religious” and “apparently unconstitutional.” He also said it means the religious government is exerting unconstitutional pressure on students who are legally required to attend school.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the bill in June, prompting a lawsuit from a group of Louisiana public school parents with differing beliefs. They argue that the law violates First Amendment provisions that prohibit the government from establishing a religion or impeding the free exercise of that religion. They also say the proposed poster-size exhibit would isolate students, especially non-Christians. Parents also claim that: version of the Ten Commandments The version stated in the canon is preferred by many Protestants and does not conform to any of the versions found in Jewish tradition.

Supporters say the Ten Commandments are: not just religiousbut it has historical significance for the foundation of US law. Republican state Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said she disagreed with deGravelles’ findings and noted that the law was constitutional under Supreme Court precedent.

Similar bills requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms have been proposed in recent years in states such as Texas, Oklahoma and Utah. None of them passed.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law did not have a secular purpose, but rather clearly served a religious purpose.

Related Posts