Laws championed by religious conservatives helping fight Ten Commandments mandate
After federal court upholds law putting scripture in schools, foes try state court
Christian conservative activists have long championed religious freedom restoration laws and parental rights laws as way of protecting their religious rights, especially in the way they raise their children. Those same activists were behind a new Texas requirement that an abridged version of the Ten Commandments be posted in public-school classrooms throughout the state.
But Texas opponents of the new Ten Commandments law see a contradiction there: In a lawsuit filed last week challenging the Ten Commandments mandate, three mothers going to a Harris County court hope to use state restoration and parental rights laws to keep the Commandments off the school walls. The three say the new requirements violates their religious freedom and their right to raise their children as they see fit.
At issue is Senate Bill 10, approved by the Legislature in 2025, which requires that a “durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments” be posted in “a conspicuous place” in every public elementary or secondary school classroom. The sign is not to include any text other than the specified version of the Ten Commandments and is to be “legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom in which the poster or framed copy is displayed.”
The law was challenged in federal courts in Texas almost immediately. Two federal district courts struck down the law, saying it violates the First Amendment provision prohibiting the establishment of religion. But on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed by the narrowest of margins: A 9-8 vote in April restored the law. The constitutionality of the law, along with similar laws in Arkansas and Louisiana, could ultimately be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit don’t want to wait until that can happen.
The federal Supreme Court has settled the issue once before: In a 1980 case from Kentucky, Stone v. Graham, the court decided 5-4 that a law similar to the new one in Texas “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature.” But backers of the new law are hopeful that the court as it is constituted today would be willing to reverse that earlier decision as rulings in recent years have generally expanded the exposure of students in public schools to religious influences.
A key difference between the new lawsuit and the earlier ones against SB 10 is that it is making its claims under state law rather than the U.S. Constitution. The laws the plaintiffs say support their position are:
🟪 The state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1999 and modeled after a federal law going by the same name. It states that “a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion” unless the government action is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
🟪 The state’s Parental Rights Amendment, also known as Proposition 15, which was approved by almost 70 percent of the voters in an election last November. It states that parents have the “fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”
The Ten Commandments law violates those parental rights in the way it exposes students to religious dogma contrary to parental wishes, the lawsuit claims.
None of the three mothers identifies with Christianity. According to a press release from the plaintiffs, Emily Roth raises her children without a religious emphasis; Audrey Rosa Nath raises her children following several religions that include Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism and Quakerism; and Sanjam Kaur Sohal is Sikh. All of them are from the Houston area.
Since the lawsuit was filed just last week, lawyers representing Texas have yet to submit their arguments.