The American Civil Liberties Union plans to challenge a new Arkansas law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public buildings.
Act 573 was passed by the Arkansas Legislature earlier this year. The law mandates a framed copy of the Ten Commandments be hung in all public buildings, including school classrooms. The ACLU is suing four Northwest Arkansas school districts, and not the state specifically, because Act 573 assigns enforcement to local school officials rather than a state agency.
The suit argues that the law promotes a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and sends a message that students who don’t share those beliefs are outsiders in their own schools. Joining the suit are families of public school students in Northwest Arkansas. Some plaintiffs are Jewish or non-religious, while one family is Unitarian Universalist.
It also says the law is a clear violation of rights promised in the First Amendment, which reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The first section is called the Establishment Clause, and the second is the Free Exercise clause. Courts have generally interpreted the language as both barring the state from endorsing one religious practice over another, and barring religious discrimination.
The suit references a 1980 Supreme Court case, Stone v. Graham, where a court pulled a public Ten Commandments monument from Kentucky, ruling it was unconstitutional. The suit also references Roake v. Brumley, a 2024 ruling in which a federal court struck down a similar Louisiana law as “unconstitutional in all applications.”
Though, other courts have upheld Ten Commandments monuments on the basis of “history and tradition.”
The suit points to comments made by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other legislators as evidence of an overreach. In support of the law. Sanders said she was “proud” to sign the legislation.
Republican Rep. Stephen Meeks expressed his support for the bill saying: he wants kids to “at least have some exposure.” Fellow GOP Rep. Jeremy Wooldridge proclaimed: “I think that anything we can do to try to increase access to or spread that gospel, I guess, would be something that I would want us to do as a person of faith.”
The ACLU argues this is strong evidence of government interference with religious freedom.
When it moved through the legislature, the law was championed by Republican Sen. Jim Dotson and Rep. Alyssa Brown, though the two sponsors spoke little on their support for the bill.
Both were supported by a private advocacy group called WallBuilders and a legal nonprofit called First Liberty Institute. Lawyers for both organizations spoke in favor of Act 573 in committee. A lawyer from First Liberty Institute told Little Rock Public Radio this may be their chance to overturn court precedent.
The language in Act 573 is specific. It gives mandatory sign dimensions and says the sign has to be “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.” The sign cannot be hidden; the law says it must be “prominently displayed” and legible from anywhere in the room. They must be placed in a public place any student can see. Additionally, the law gives rules about the translation and wording of the Ten Commandments .
The ACLU pointed to state law mandating students attend school each year, meaning kids will be forced to look at the signs “day in and day out.” And right now, the state has about 470,000 kids enrolled in 1,000 public schools.
The Ten Commandments conveys different ideas to different faiths. Jehovah's Witnesses are authoritative or binding, while Catholics use a different translation than the one in the bill.
Several Jewish plaintiffs made the same argument. Plaintiffs Samantha Stinson and Jonathan Stinson have children in the Fayetteville Public Schools. They are practicing Jews, attending a local temple regularly.
The Stinsons say the signs are contrary to their faith on several grounds. First, the language isn't translated from the Hebrew Torah. Second, it uses the word “God” instead of “G-d” , a spelling many Jews believe to be more respectful. They also object to male pronouns in this text of the commandments.
“In the Jewish faith, G-d is beyond gender,” the suit says. “Because G-d is incorporeal and neither male nor female.”
Another Jewish plaintiff, Carol Vella, whose children are in Bentonville schools, objected to the signs more broadly. The suit says:
“Her Jewish faith teaches, and she teaches her children, that religious beliefs should not be imposed on anyone.”
Meanwhile, plaintiff Joseph Armendariz is a Unitarian Universalist with children in Fayetteville Public Schools. He says his faith “does not endorse specific scripture or dogma, although it does affirm principles and values that help guide one’s ethical and moral decision-making.”
They further object to the final commandment, which reads:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
Through the suit, Armendariz said this “suggests an endorsement of personal servitude and slavery.”
A group of non religious families worry the signs will make their children feel bad about not being Christian.
Plaintiff Leah Bailey has children in the Siloam Springs School District. She considers herself agnostic and “allows her children to independently develop their own opinions on religious matters.”
Atheists and humanists Plaintiffs Talara Taylor and Shane Taylor have children in the Springdale Schools. They say at a different public school a “a teacher became angry” at one of their children “for not believing in God.” The family thinks the sign could remind them of that “trauma."
The suit is set to be heard in Northwest Arkansas. The new law is set to take effect on August 5.
