In the momentous 1980 decision of Stone v. Graham, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a Kentucky law that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms was unconstitutional. The court, led by conservative Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, was ideologically diverse. Their decision relied largely on precedent from the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the unanimous ruling led to the development of a “test” to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making a law that “respect(s) an establishment of religion.” Essentially, no government in the United States may uplift or bring down any religion. The “Lemon Test” stipulates that a bill violates the Establishment Clause if it does not have “a clear secular legislative purpose” or overly mingles government with religion, especially with government financing of religion. Because the Ten Commandments are part of sacred text in both Christianity and Judaism, the court found that they do not have a clear secular purpose in the classroom, even though they would teach students about the historical rooting of our laws and their addition to classrooms would be funded by private donors.
The Stone v. Graham decision demonstrates the power of legal precedent, which has stopped politicians in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah from moving forward with similar religious requirements, including Ten Commandments laws, for fear of being sued. But this June, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry remained apparently unfazed by the blatant unconstitutionality of the bill he signed, which will again require the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms statewide.
First of all, the Louisiana law clearly violates the Lemon Test because although it would be funded privately through donations, it stipulates that every public school classroom in the state, from kindergarten through publicly funded universities, must now include a poster-sized, “easily readable” Christian Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, just like the Kentucky law shot down a half-century ago. The governor’s support for the law? “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses, who got the commandments from God,” Landry claims. Sounds secular, right? Well, at least his state's students are top of mind? Wrong again. While giving a speech on stage at the signing ceremony, a young girl fainted behind Landry. He responded by continuing his speech on the positive impact the Ten Commandments will have on young children in the classroom as others rushed to her aid. How ironic.
Given the hypocrisy and flagrancy of his bill, it appears Landry is seeking controversy over anything else; days before the signing, Governor Landry stated, “I can’t wait to be sued.” He embraces the proven unconstitutionality of the bill with open arms, hoping to at least put on a show for like-minded GOP politicians and, at best, to end his stunt by taking advantage of a sympathetic Supreme Court to upend decades of meaningful precedent. As Chris Brennan of USA Today stated, “[The] Louisiana law isn't about [the] Ten Commandments. It's Christian nationalist bait for [the] Supreme Court.” Brennan believes that Landry is clearly bent on boosting his national profile more than inspiring students with the historical implications he claims of the Commandments.
But will Landry’s wild wishes come true? A group of plaintiffs, including nine parents, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, have already filed an expedited lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge. All three justices on this district court were nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, so it is more likely than not that they will agree to take down the bill. However, if the ruling is successfully appealed and then appealed again by the prosecution, the United States Supreme Court could hear it. Given the volume of high-profile cases recently heard by the court, it would probably be eager to hear this case with such grand implications for our nation. There, Governor Landry’s greatest hope could become reality. Today’s Supreme Court is far more polarized and more conservative than the court that heard Stone v. Graham in 1988. Many justices would face a tough decision between decades of precedent and their faith. Perhaps some justices, notably Justice Samuel Alito, who was recently caught on tape saying he supported our nation returning “to a place of godliness,” would even have to choose between their own Christian Nationalist beliefs and the religious freedom written in our First Amendment.
Rights like our freedom of and from religion are under attack, perhaps more today than ever. No matter one’s faith or political ideology, our nation was founded on the principle that the church and state remain separate, and that must remain true if we wish to remain the land of the free. Ours is a time when the politicians and judges we trust to protect our rights increasingly focus on their personal agendas. Leaders must continue to serve us, the people, legally and with justice for all.
Cover Photo Credit Associated Press.
Comments