Louisiana will return to federal court next week to defend a controversial law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, as the case moves before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc in New Orleans.
The case, Roake v. Brumley, stems from a law passed by the Louisiana Legislature mandating that public school classrooms display small posters of the Ten Commandments accompanied by a statement describing their historical influence on American law and education. Supporters argue the measure is constitutional and rooted in longstanding tradition, while opponents say it violates the separation of church and state.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law before any displays were installed. A federal district court blocked the statute, and a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit allowed that injunction to remain in place. However, in a significant procedural move last fall, the full court agreed to rehear the case, signaling that a broader reconsideration of the constitutional issues is underway.
Louisiana is being represented by the conservative religious liberty law firm Becket, alongside Liz Murrill and Benjamin Aguiñaga, who will present oral arguments on behalf of the state.
State attorneys are expected to emphasize the historical role of religious imagery in American civic life. Their filings point to examples ranging from early proposals for the Great Seal of the United States, which once considered biblical imagery, to the Ten Commandments’ presence in prominent government spaces, including depictions inside the U.S. Supreme Court building. They argue that the Louisiana law is educational rather than devotional, highlighting history rather than promoting religious observance.
Under the statute, schools would be required to include explanatory language placing the Ten Commandments in historical context, and districts would retain flexibility in how the displays are designed. Supporters say those provisions are intended to comply with constitutional standards set by recent Supreme Court rulings that allow greater consideration of historical practices in Establishment Clause cases.
The ACLU, however, maintains that requiring religious texts in classrooms places students, particularly those from nonreligious or minority faith backgrounds, in an environment that implicitly endorses religion. The organization argues that the mandate crosses a constitutional line by compelling daily exposure to religious doctrine in a public education setting. According to the ACLU, public schools are uniquely coercive environments for children, who are required by law to attend and are not free to simply opt out of the classroom setting. Civil liberties advocates also warn that even with contextual language, the presence of a religious text displayed by the state can signal official approval of one faith tradition over others, potentially marginalizing students who do not share those beliefs. From the ACLU’s perspective, the Constitution’s Establishment Clause is meant to prevent exactly this type of government involvement in religious messaging, especially in spaces where students are young, impressionable, and compelled to be present.
Oral arguments are scheduled for January 20, 2026, at 1 p.m. CT, in the Fifth Circuit’s en banc courtroom at 600 Camp Street in downtown New Orleans. The proceedings will be open to the public, with live audio streaming available through the court’s website.
The outcome could have implications well beyond Louisiana. A ruling upholding the law may encourage similar legislation in other states, while a decision striking it down could reaffirm limits on religious displays in public schools. For now, the case places Louisiana at the center of a renewed national debate over religion, history, and constitutional boundaries in public education.
