A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against an Arkansas law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public school classrooms and libraries Aug. 4, calling it “plainly unconstitutional.” The law was due to take effect Aug. 5.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks wrote in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 that Act 573 violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
A preliminary injunction bars the state from enforcing the law until the case is heard. Brooks granted the injunction based on plaintiffs’ likelihood of winning the case on the merits, the threat of harm to the plaintiffs, the balance of harm to them versus the harm to the defendants, and the public interest. The likelihood of winning the case is the most important, he wrote.
Act 573 requires all public school districts to “prominently display” a 16-inch-by-20-inch durable poster or framed copy of the King James Version of the Ten Commandments in each public school library and classroom. The law says the text must be legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room. It does not require an explanation for why the Ten Commandments are posted.
The law mandates that displays be donated or purchased with private funds. It allows schools to use public funds or a private donation to replace a version that does not meet the law’s requirements with one that does. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette quoted Attorney General Tim Griffin saying, “I am reviewing the court’s order and assessing our legal options.”
Gov. Sarah Sanders signed the bill into law in April. It had passed the Senate 27-4 with three voting present and one excused. It had passed the House 71-20 with seven not voting and two voting present.
Seven families sued the Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville and Siloam Springs School Districts. Brooks wrote that the four school districts had told the court they “were not inclined to defend Act 573 on the merits,” so the state of Arkansas through Attorney General Tim Griffin intervened. He denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The parent-plaintiffs are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, atheist and agnostic. Brooks wrote that the plaintiffs had said the law will usurp their parental authority to direct their children’s religious upbringing, forcibly subject their children to religious beliefs conflicting with the family’s, communicate that the children do not belong in their school community, and coerce the children to follow the state’s “favored religious text.”
Brooks indicated that he agreed with the plaintiffs.
“Students receiving instruction in algebra, physics, engineering, accounting, computer science, woodworking, fashion design, and German will do so in classrooms that prominently display (the King James version of) the Ten Commandments,” he wrote. “Every day from kindergarten to twelfth grade, children will be confronted with these Commandments – or face civil penalties for missing school.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas provided representation along with the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, a New York City-based firm, served as pro bono counsel.
In a press release from ACLU Arkansas, plaintiff Samantha Stinson was quoted saying, “Act 573 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased that the court ruled in our favor. The version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family’s Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials.”
The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Brooks wrote that the Free Exercise Clause is violated when “direct governmental compulsion” burdening religious belief or practice occurs, and a violation of the Establishment Clause occurs when laws establish an official religion.
Brooks wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 in Stone v. Graham had declared unconstitutional a Kentucky Ten Commandments law that was “nearly identical” to Arkansas’. He wrote that the case “begins and ends with Stone.” He wrote that the Supreme Court had said that posting the Ten Commandments on a public school wall “serves … no educational function.”
Brooks wrote that the state’s purpose was not merely to display the Ten Commandments or to teach history.
“Rather, as in Stone, the Arkansas General Assembly’s purpose is ‘to induce … schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments.’ … That is illegal,” he wrote.
He noted that a district court had enjoined a similar Louisiana law passed in 2024.