The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed religious liberty advocates a major win Tuesday, ruling that Texas can require every public school classroom in the state to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. The 9, 8 en banc decision reversed a lower court injunction and cleared the way for enforcement of Senate Bill 10, as CBS News Texas reported.

The ruling marks the most significant federal appellate victory for Ten Commandments displays in public schools in decades, and it sets the stage for a potential showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas lawmakers passed SB 10 in June 2025 with strong Republican support. The law requires every public elementary and secondary school, including charter schools, to post a "durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments" in each classroom. The display must measure at least 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall, use an easily readable typeface, and hang in a conspicuous place. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill on June 10, Breitbart reported.

By early December 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union and allied religious freedom organizations had filed suit in the U.S. District Court in San Antonio on behalf of 18 families with children in Texas public schools. Sixteen school districts were named as defendants, seven of them from North Texas. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law.

Tuesday's Fifth Circuit opinion dismantled that injunction and the legal framework behind it.

The court's reasoning: a poster is not a summons to prayer

Writing for the majority, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan grounded the decision in the Supreme Court's shift away from the so-called Lemon test, the three-pronged standard that governed Establishment Clause cases for half a century. In its 2022 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the high court abandoned Lemon in favor of a history-and-tradition analysis. The Fifth Circuit majority concluded that the 1980 precedent in Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar Kentucky law, no longer controls.

Fox News reported the majority wrote bluntly: "[W]ith Lemon extracted, there is nothing left of Stone."

The court then applied the newer framework and found that SB 10 bears no resemblance to a founding-era establishment of religion. The opinion catalogued what the law does not do: it does not tell churches, synagogues, or mosques what to believe; it punishes no one who rejects the Commandments; it levies no taxes to support clergy; and it does not conscript churches to perform civic functions.

"S.B. 10... does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis, or imams. It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason. It levies no taxes to support any clergy. It does not co-opt churches to perform civic functions. These are the kinds of things 'establishments of religion' did at the founding. S.B. 10 does none of them."

The court also addressed the coercion argument head-on. Opponents claimed that forcing children to sit in rooms with the Commandments on the wall amounted to religious indoctrination. The majority rejected that characterization.

The opinion stated that "students are neither catechized on the Commandments nor taught to adopt them." Teachers receive no license to proselytize or contradict a child's religious beliefs. No student is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin. The court drew a hard line between a poster and the kind of compelled worship that defined historical establishments of religion.

"Most importantly, the 'coercion' characteristic of religious establishments was government pressure to engage in religious worship. That's why establishments prescribed liturgies and punished those who skipped them. S.B. 10 is far from that. It puts a poster on a classroom wall. Yes, Plaintiffs have sincere religious disagreements with its content. But that does not transform the poster into a summons to prayer."

That distinction matters. The ACLU's argument rested on the idea that mere exposure to religious content in a government building crosses the constitutional line. The Fifth Circuit said it does not, at least not under the standard the Supreme Court now applies.

A close vote and a likely path to the Supreme Court

The decision was far from unanimous. The en banc court split 9, 8, underscoring how contested the Establishment Clause remains even after the Supreme Court's doctrinal shift. The Washington Times noted that Judge Duncan, writing for the majority, emphasized that SB 10 "looks nothing like a historical religious establishment." The dissenters presumably disagreed with how far the history-and-tradition test stretches.

The tight margin all but guarantees the case will attract Supreme Court attention. The Fifth Circuit had already been reviewing similar mandates in both Louisiana and Texas, and the circuit split on religion-in-schools questions has been widening for years. A cert petition seems inevitable.

Supporters call it a landmark for religious liberty

Sen. Phil King, the Weatherford Republican who authored SB 10, celebrated the ruling. King has long argued that the Ten Commandments are not merely a religious document but a foundational text in Western legal history.

"As I have said all along, few documents in the history of Western civilization and in American history have had a larger impact on our moral and legal code, and our culture, than the Ten Commandments. Returning this historical document to public school classrooms will provide moral clarity and allow students to better understand the foundation for much of American history and law. This is a great day for Texas!"

Jonathan Saenz, president and attorney for Texas Values, which defended the law, called the ruling "one of the most important religious liberty victories for Texas in our glorious history." Saenz added that it "confirms that our state can honor the moral heritage that undergirds our legal system without violating the First Amendment," Just The News reported.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also weighed in, calling the decision "a major victory for Texas and our moral values."

The ruling arrives at a moment when the federal government has moved to protect prayer and religious expression in public schools, and the broader national conversation about faith in public life has intensified.

The ACLU vows to fight on

The ACLU made clear Tuesday that it views the ruling as a grave error. The organization, which filed the original lawsuit on behalf of the 18 families, issued a statement expressing deep disagreement.

"We are extremely disappointed in today's decision. The Court's ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority. The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights."

The ACLU's reference to "binding U.S. Supreme Court authority" likely points to Stone v. Graham, the very precedent the Fifth Circuit majority said no longer holds after Kennedy v. Bremerton. Whether the Supreme Court agrees that Stone is effectively dead will be the central question if the justices take the case.

That prospect gives the ruling even greater weight. The composition of the Supreme Court could determine whether the Fifth Circuit's reasoning becomes the law of the land or an outlier.

What the law actually requires

It is worth pausing on what SB 10 does and does not mandate, because the ACLU's framing, "religious instruction" forced on children, does not match the text of the law or the court's reading of it.

The law requires a poster. It specifies a minimum size. It requires legible type and a conspicuous location. It does not require teachers to discuss the Commandments, assign readings about them, or incorporate them into any lesson plan. It does not require students to acknowledge the display, respond to it, or agree with it.

The Fifth Circuit was explicit: "S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children's religious beliefs (or their parents'). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin."

The gap between what the law requires and what opponents claim it does has defined this fight from the start. The court's opinion suggests that gap is wide enough to drive a constitutional truck through.

The broader push to restore religious liberty in the public square has gained momentum across multiple fronts, from school policy to executive action. The Fifth Circuit's ruling fits squarely within that movement.

What comes next

With the injunction reversed, SB 10 can take effect. Texas public schools will be required to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The original law set a start date of September 1.

The ACLU will almost certainly seek Supreme Court review. The 9, 8 split gives them ammunition to argue the question is unsettled. And the stakes are high: a Supreme Court ruling could either entrench the history-and-tradition standard as the sole test for Establishment Clause cases or pull back from the Fifth Circuit's expansive reading of Kennedy v. Bremerton.

For now, though, Texas has won. The Fifth Circuit looked at a poster on a classroom wall and saw a historical document, not a government-imposed prayer service. The ACLU looked at the same poster and saw an establishment of religion.

The difference between those two views is the difference between a country that acknowledges its moral foundations and one that pretends they don't exist. Texas chose to acknowledge them. The Fifth Circuit said the Constitution allows it.