吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� More than two dozen Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The request, filed today, urges the court to protect students鈥� and parents鈥� religious freedom by blocking Texas Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10), ensuring that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� have the right to decide what role religion plays in their lives. The Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families challenging the Texas law attend 22 school districts across the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Today鈥檚 petition seeks review of lower court rulings in two separate but similar cases: Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District. Under S.B. 10, Texas public schools must permanently display a state-mandated version of the Ten Commandments, drawn from the Protestant King James Bible, in a 鈥渃onspicuous鈥� place in each classroom, from kindergarten through 12th grade. The families challenging S.B. 10 object to the law because the displays will pressure children to conform to the state鈥檚 favored religious beliefs and interfere with parents鈥� right to guide their children鈥檚 religious instruction. Today鈥檚 Supreme Court filing, a joint petition for a writ of certiorari in both cases, follows an April decision by the en banc U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowing the state-selected version of the Ten Commandments to go up in the plaintiffs鈥� classrooms. By a narrowly decided vote, the 5th Circuit ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate either the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment 鈥� despite a 1980 Supreme Court case striking down a nearly identical Kentucky law. 鈥淎s a rabbi and parent, forcing a Christian version of the Ten Commandments on children in every classroom is particularly upsetting,鈥� said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler (he/him) of Houston. 鈥淚 am not only worried about my own kids, but I鈥檓 deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation. These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families鈥� religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.鈥� 鈥淭exas politicians shouldn鈥檛 have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education. That decision belongs to our family,鈥� said plaintiffs Rebekah (she/her) and Ted Lowe (he/him), an Austin-based interfaith couple who are raising their children in the Christian and Jewish traditions. 鈥淭his law puts one version of religious beliefs above all others in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.鈥� 鈥淏y requiring displays of religious doctrine in every classroom, the state is interfering with our family鈥檚 decisions about how our children engage with religion,鈥� said plaintiff Nichole Manning (she/her), a Dallas-area atheist who is raising her children in a nonreligious tradition that gives them the space and autonomy to develop their own beliefs about religion. 鈥淎s a parent, I intentionally choose to have my children attend public school because I prefer an educational environment without any religious affiliation. In a diverse public school environment, all students should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.鈥� 鈥淭he U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this kind of government-imposed religion before, and it should do so again,鈥� said Chloe Kempf (she/her), attorney at the ACLU of Texas. 鈥淗aving these posters in Texas classrooms puts students at risk of bullying, stigmatization, and religious coercion. Our nation鈥檚 bedrock principle of separating church and state means that families and faith communities 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide what role religion plays in children鈥檚 lives. Texas students deserve public schools that welcome them for who they are, respect their religious or nonreligious backgrounds, and give them the high-quality education they need to build their futures.鈥� 鈥淔ifty years ago, the ACLU won a Supreme Court victory against a nearly identical Kentucky law 鈥� and we aim to do it again,鈥� said Cecillia Wang (she/her), national legal director of the ACLU. 鈥淚n our country, no legislature can force its preferred scripture on public school students and families.鈥� 鈥淔amilies 鈥� not politicians or public school officials 鈥� get to decide how, if, and when children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United. 鈥淲e urge the Supreme Court to make clear that these Ten Commandments mandates violate students鈥� and families鈥� religious freedom as promised by the U.S. Constitution. With ever more states attempting to force one version of religion into public school classrooms, our nation must recommit to our foundational promise of church-state separation, the lynchpin of religious liberty.鈥� 鈥淭his case concerns decisions about personal belief and religious instruction, and whether under our Constitution they remain with families and faith communities or are commandeered by the state,鈥� said Jon Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of the litigation department at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. 鈥淭he First Amendment has long protected the freedom of individuals to determine for themselves how they engage with spirituality and religion. Those protections are especially important in the public-school setting.鈥� 鈥淭he First Commandment, dictating which god must be worshipped, is the antithesis of our First Amendment,鈥� says Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淚t is not the government鈥檚 role to daily expose young children to a coercive display of one religion鈥檚 set of religious edicts in our public schools. Our public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize.鈥� The Lowe and Fixler families share more about how they will be impacted by these Ten Commandments displays and why they oppose them in newly released, heartfelt videos that can be viewed here; transcripts are available here.

A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Baha鈥檌, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families 鈥� not politicians or the government 鈥攖he right to guide children鈥檚 religious belief and education.

A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families 鈥� not politicians or the government 鈥� the right to guide children鈥檚 religious belief and education.

BOSTON 鈥� More than a dozen Quincy residents with diverse religious beliefs asked the state鈥檚 highest court today to uphold a ruling that blocked the Quincy mayor鈥檚 plan to install two large religious statues at the entrance of the city鈥檚 new public safety building. The plaintiffs argue that installing the ten-foot-tall statues 鈥� which depict the Catholic iconography of Saint Michael the Archangel and Saint Florian 鈥� as the sole adornments on the building鈥檚 facade would undermine religious pluralism in Quincy and violate the Massachusetts Constitution鈥檚 longstanding requirement that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. Today鈥檚 hearing follows an October 2025 ruling by a Norfolk Superior Court judge, which held that the City鈥檚 planned religious display would likely violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and temporarily enjoined the city from proceeding with the installation. The City appealed that ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court. "I am here as an American, and as a Christian," said Conevery Bolton Valencius, a resident of Quincy for more than 20 years and plaintiff in the case. "My faith is at the center of my life. If the government lifts up one religion over others, then no one鈥檚 faith is safe. All of us deserve the freedom to follow where our faith leads 鈥� or to have no faith at all. Installing statues of saints at the entrance to a prominent government building signals a preference that threatens my religious liberty. I want statues like these at my church, not looming over the doors of our new public safety building.鈥� 鈥淚 am deeply troubled by the City鈥檚 plans to install two large Catholic icons on a government building," said Claire Fitzmaurice, a resident of Quincy and a plaintiff. "To me, these statues are clearly religious. The winged figure of St. Michael the Archangel is even depicted stomping on the head of a demon! As an active member of my Unitarian Universalist church, one of my central religious principles is religious pluralism. These 10-foot-tall statues at the entrance to our public safety building violate that principle by literally elevating one faith above all others. This sends a clear signal that those who hold different religious beliefs are second-class citizens in Quincy. No city should send that message 鈥� especially when providing essential services.鈥� Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guarantees that 鈥渁ll religious sects and denominations ... shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.鈥� The Supreme Judicial Court鈥檚 1979 ruling in Colo v. Treasurer and Receiver General set forth a careful balancing test to analyze government actions challenged under Article 3. Plaintiffs in this case argue that the planned installation fails this test, and the Superior Court agreed that they were likely to succeed in this argument. 鈥淭he Massachusetts Declaration of Rights demands that our government remain neutral in matters of religion,鈥� said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. 鈥淭his neutrality is precisely what allows the richly varied beliefs of our clients and others 鈥� including deeply held Christian beliefs 鈥� to flourish in cities like Quincy and across the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established the legal test to analyze Art. 3 claims nearly 50 years ago, and for good reason, that test remains good law. Under that test, installing these statues as the sole adornment on a government building, especially one intended to provide essential services to all residents, violates our state constitution.鈥� The plaintiffs in Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy filed their lawsuit in May 2025 after local media revealed Mayor Thomas P. Koch鈥檚 plan to install the statues, which had been commissioned in secret nearly a year and a half earlier. The estimated cost to taxpayers is at least $850,000. None of these details had previously been disclosed either to the public or to the full Quincy City Council. Despite significant opposition from constituents 鈥� including an online petition with over 1,600 signatures and a statement from 19 local faith leaders 鈥� the mayor pressed forward with his plan. In October, the Norfolk Superior Court denied the City鈥檚 motion to dismiss the lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the planned installation. Rejecting arguments that the Saint Michael and Saint Florian statues are secular, the court held that "the depiction of the statues, their association with one religion, and the various reactions of community members, City Council members, and faith leaders demonstrate Plaintiffs will likely be able to show that the statues convey to the public observing them the implicit government support for the religious doctrine and adherents of Catholic / Christian faith, and as a result, the subordination of other religions." The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Cloherty & Steinberg LLP. Find more information about Fitzmaurice et al. v. City of Quincy here.