The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Tuesday that Texas may require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a closely divided en banc decision in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, the court reversed a lower court injunction that blocked enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 10, allowing the law to take effect while litigation continues.

The majority held that the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham, which held that mandatory classroom displays of the Ten Commandments were unconstitutional, no longer applies. According to the court, Stone relied on the now-abandoned “lemon test” as a framework that assessed whether a law had a secular purpose, a primary effect advancing religion, or excessive entanglement with religion. In its place, the court applied a more recent approach focused on history and tradition. Under that framework, the majority concluded that references to religion, including the Ten Commandments, have long been part of the nation’s public life and legal heritage. It held that the display requirement fits within that tradition. The court emphasized that the law does not compel students to engage in religious activity as there is no requirement to read, recite, or follow the Ten Commandments, and no penalty for rejecting them. The majority therefore rejected claims of coercion. The court also accepted the state’s stated purpose that the displays serve an educational function, pointing to the Ten Commandments as part of the historical and moral foundations of Western legal systems.

Texas Senate Bill 10 mandates that a state-approved version of the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom. Displays must be at least 16 by 20 inches, clearly visible, and must be donated rather than purchased with public funds.

The case was brought by a multifaith group of families, who argued that it imposed a religious message on students in violation of the First Amendment. A federal district court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction and finding the law likely to be unconstitutional. Similar challenges in other cases, including Cribbs-Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, also led courts to block enforcement of the law at the district level. Challengers, represented by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that the law amounts to state endorsement of religion. They pointed to the use of a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and argued that students cannot realistically avoid daily exposure. The plaintiffs also raised concerns about parental rights, asserting that the state is intruding into decisions about children’s religious upbringing.