A federal judge in the Western District of Arkansas on August 4 halted enforcement of Arkansas Act 573, a new state law that would have required every public school classroom and library to display a 16-by-20-inch copy of the Ten Commandments.
In a sharply worded opinion, the court ruled that the law is “plainly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion, and also likely violates the Free Exercise Clause by burdening the religious or nonreligious beliefs of students and families.
Act 573 mirrored a Kentucky law struck down by the US Supreme Court in Stone v Graham (1980) and closely resembled a Louisiana statute enjoined last year. The Arkansas law mandated that a specific version of the Ten Commandments — taken from the King James Bible — be posted in all K-12 classrooms, visible from anywhere in the room, without any accompanying historical explanation. Although the state argued the requirement was merely a “passive” display funded by private donations, the judge rejected that view, noting that students are a “captive audience” and cannot avoid engagement with the religious text during the school day.
The plaintiffs, nine parents from northwest Arkansas representing a range of faiths and nonbeliefs, said the law would impose a state-preferred Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments on their children. Jewish families objected to theological differences with the mandated version; Unitarians noted conflicts with their teachings; atheist and agnostic parents said the displays would amount to daily proselytizing. All argued that the law would undermine their right to guide their children’s religious upbringing and send an exclusionary message to students who do not share the state’s preferred beliefs.
In its analysis, the court emphasized that Stone remains binding precedent and directly controls the outcome: posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms without integration into an academic curriculum “serves no educational function” and instead aims to induce students “to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey” the text. The judge also found that even under the Supreme Court’s newer “historical practices and understandings” test from Kennedy v Bremerton School District (2022), Act 573 fails, as there is no historical tradition of permanent Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms.
The opinion devoted significant attention to coercion in the school environment, citing cases like Lee v Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe. The court observed that mandatory attendance, the authority of teachers, and peer pressure combine to make even “silent” religious displays in classrooms inherently coercive for children, unlike monuments in public parks or prayers at legislative meetings that adults can choose to avoid.
On the Free Exercise claim, the judge ruled that Act 573 is not religiously neutral, since it mandates a particular sectarian version of scripture. By compelling exposure to this text, the state would burden families’ religious choices without a compelling justification, and it failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to any legitimate goal. If the state wished to teach about the Ten Commandments’ historical role, the court said, it could do so objectively in relevant courses rather than posting scripture in every classroom.
The preliminary injunction applies across all four school districts named in the suit, not just the plaintiffs’ individual schools. The court rejected the state’s request to limit relief, reasoning that students regularly move between classrooms and schools, making narrower protection impractical and potentially stigmatizing. The case is likely to return to court for a final ruling, but for now, Arkansas cannot enforce Act 573.
Fayetteville, Ark. (Mindy/Flickr Creative Commons)Editorial
Laws Written to Lose
Arkansas lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing when they passed Act 573. The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical law in Stone more than 40 years ago. The state’s own lawyers could not plausibly claim that this measure would survive judicial review.
So why do it? The court’s opinion offers one answer: a coordinated, multistate campaign to push Christian religious doctrine into public schools, hoping that a friendlier Supreme Court might take the bait and revisit its precedents. These bills are as much political theater as policy, designed to rally certain voters and provoke legal fights rather than solve real problems in education.
The cost is not just in wasted legislative time and legal fees. Laws like Act 573 force parents and students — often from minority faiths or no faith at all — into court to defend their rights. They create needless division in school communities and undermine the principle that public schools must serve all children equally, regardless of belief.
If lawmakers want to test constitutional limits, they should be honest with constituents about the risks and costs. Passing measures they know will be struck down may serve a political narrative, but it does nothing to improve education — and it erodes respect for both lawmaking and the Constitution.
