From the Arkansas Advocate:
A federal judge said he will decide soon whether to block implementation of a new state law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, following a nearly nine-hour hearing Friday.
Act 573 of 2025 requires that “a durable poster or framed copy of a historical representation of the Ten Commandments” be “prominently” displayed in public school classrooms and libraries, public institutions of higher education, and public buildings and facilities maintained by taxpayer funds.
Seven multifaith families with children in Arkansas public schools filed the lawsuit in federal court last month against the Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville and Siloam Springs school districts.
The complaint argues the new law violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. The law’s supporters contend the Ten Commandments have historical significance because they influenced the nation’s founders and the country’s legal system.
The families asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and requested a preliminary injunction that would apply only to the four Northwest Arkansas school districts. Attorneys for the state on Friday asked that if a preliminary injunction is granted, it be narrowly tailored to the affected students.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks said he will issue a ruling before the law’s Aug. 5 effective date.
Brooks has also yet to rule on two motions to dismiss the case, one from the school districts and one from Attorney General Tim Griffin, who was allowed to intervene in the case.
“I will continue to vigorously defend Act 573,” Griffin said in a statement Friday evening.
The Northwest Arkansas school districts argued in a brief in support of their motion to dismiss that, according to the law, they’re not required to have displays of the Ten Commandments unless the districts or their school boards receive voluntary donations of funds or displays that comply with the law’s specifications. The districts said they had no plans to implement displays in the coming year because no donations, monetary or otherwise, have been made to the schools.
In his motion to dismiss, Griffin argued that the plaintiffs lack standing. Because the plaintiffs have not yet seen these displays, their alleged injury is based on speculation, he said.
Arkansas Deputy Solicitor General Noah Watson echoed those comments Friday, arguing Brooks should not issue a preliminary injunction because it’s “guesswork at this stage” that plaintiffs will be harmed. It’s unknown if the districts will have posters or in what context they’ll be displayed, he said.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued there are efforts underway by third parties to make the posters available to districts.
Although the law becomes effective Aug. 5, the school districts argued there’s no deadline to comply because they can only comply if and when they receive contributions or displays. The law has no penalties for lack of compliance because some districts may never be able to comply, the brief states.
Districts’ attorney Marshall Ney said Friday that the districts aren’t trying to take “a vigorous position” on the law, and just want to return to educating students.
“They want to teach the kids, they don’t want to be in this firestorm on an issue like this,” Ney said. “This is just a distraction for the school districts.”
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett serving as pro bono counsel.
After Friday’s hearing, ACLU of Arkansas Legal Director John Williams told reporters that the danger of the new law is it aims to instill particular religious values.
“We think it’s exclusionary to tell certain students that because you don’t belong to this particular religion, that you’re excluded,” Williams said. “So we think it’s important to protect those rights of people who don’t believe in this version of the Ten Commandments.”
By mandating a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments be displayed, the law violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibition against adopting an official position on religious matters, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued.
They also said the law violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”
The Ten Commandment displays unconstitutionally coerce into religious observance students who will feel pressured into suppressing their own beliefs to avoid potential disfavor, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued. The law also impedes parents’ ability to guide their children’s religious development.
Attorneys for the state repeatedly argued the law mandates a “nonsectarian” version and historical representation of the Ten Commandments.
Similar arguments were made during legislative hearings this spring. Sen. Jim Dotson, R-Bentonville, and Rep. Alyssa Brown, R-Heber Springs, sponsored Act 573, but the merits of the legislation were largely presented in committee by WallBuilders, a group “emphasizing the moral, Christian, and constitutional foundation on which our nation was built,” according to its website.
Steven Green, the director of Willamette University’s Center for Religion, Law and Democracy who served as an expert witness at Friday’s hearing, said that, according to his research, the Ten Commandments were not foundational to the country’s founding documents or legal traditions. They contain values and principles about right and wrong that can be found in other societies and are not unique to the Ten Commandments, he said.
Though attorneys disagreed on the historical nature of the Ten Commandments, they all agreed they do have religious ties. When Brooks questioned Arkansas legislators’ decision to approve the law, the state’s attorneys said they could not comment on the Legislature’s intent beyond the text of the law.
Brooks said it seemed “pretty obvious” that the Ten Commandments address ethics and moral issues, so it seems logical that the purpose is to aid in the moral development of students.
“Why is that so hard to acknowledge?” he asked.
Parents have filed lawsuits against laws similar to Arkansas’ in Louisiana and Texas. A federal appeals court blocked Louisiana’s law last month. Plaintiffs in that case are represented by the same counsel as the Arkansas lawsuit.
