Bills requiring Ten Commandments displays in Alabama schools moving forward with lawmakers

DOTHAN, Ala (WDHN) — Two controversial companion bills requiring public schools around the state to display the ten commandments are making their way through the Alabama legislation.
These bills would require each board of education to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in a common area of each school, like a library, in its jurisdiction. The Ten Commandments would have to be displayed in a 11 by 14 poster in 'large, easily readable font.'
SB166 and HB178 moved out of the Senate and House committees, and are waiting to be put on the calendar for floor debates.
The approved texts could also be displayed with the Mayflower Compact of 1620, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
According to the bills, Alabama boards of education would not have to pay for the display themselves, and instead accept donated funds or donated displays.
They also dictates that the Alabama Commission on Higher Education should adopt rules to implement the bill.
If the bills are signed into law, school systems must comply by January 1, 2026.
A nearly identical bill was signed into law in Louisiana in 2024. However, this bill required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in each classroom around the state.
New alert system could save lives of Alabama abuse victims
Similar to Louisiana's law, SB166 has drawn criticism.
The ACLU of Alabama says the bill is 'unconstitutional – plain and simple.'
'The First Amendment guarantees that students and their families —not politicians or the government—get to decide which religious beliefs, if any, they adopt and what role those beliefs will play in their lives. Displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms blatantly violates this promise. Students can't focus on learning if they don't feel safe and welcome in their schools,' the ACLU of Alabama wrote on its website.
The organization took the same stance on Louisiana's law, stating it violated the separation of church and state. In November, a federal judge blocked the pelican state's law, stating it was 'overtly religious.'
WDHN's Montgomery Bureau Reporter, Ryan Hall, contributed to this article.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

18 minutes ago

• Yahoo

4 Ways Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement

President Donald Trump's signature legislation, dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' includes plans for tax cuts, green energy cuts, Medicaid cuts and more. It also contains new retirement account provisions that could affect how Americans plan for their golden years. Be Aware: Read Next: As the landmark bill makes its way from the House to the Senate, here's a look at what you need to understand about how it can affect how you plan for retirement. Many Americans would receive a break on their taxes owed if the bill is passed. This means they would be able to channel more money into retirement savings accounts. 'Retirement planning fundamentally comes down to having sufficient resources to make work optional,' said Brett Horowitz, principal and wealth manager at Evensky & Katz / Foldes Financial Wealth Management. 'The proposed extensions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act provisions, combined with new deductions for tip income, overtime pay and seniors over 65, could significantly improve retirement outcomes for Americans.' Those who benefited from the cuts in the original Tax Cuts & Jobs Act will continue to enjoy these cuts, allowing them to continue saving for retirement as they had been. 'With many TCJA provisions set to expire at the end of 2025, the House Republican proposal to make these extensions permanent may provide the certainty we need for effective long-term planning,' Horowitz said. 'Retirement modeling depends on clear inputs and stable variables,' he continued. 'The less uncertainty in tax policy, the more accurately we can project success rates. When these changes take effect — pending Senate approval — we'll be able to deliver much better news to clients about their retirement timeline.' Horowitz believes if Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' does not ultimately pass, it could negatively affect Americans' abilities to save for retirement. 'There's a profound psychological difference between telling someone they can retire earlier than expected versus having to extend their working years,' he said. 'The former energizes people about their financial future; the latter can feel overwhelming. These tax provisions create the conditions where more Americans can realistically achieve comfortable retirement.' Learn More: Savvy long-term investment strategies should take taxes into account, so changes to tax laws can shift these strategies. 'Smart investing isn't actually about chasing the highest gross returns — it's about maximizing what clients actually keep after taxes and expenses, and this tax bill addresses some issues there,' Horowitz said. 'While we can control costs through low-fee funds, tax efficiency requires a more nuanced approach that varies by everyone's personal circumstances. 'Higher tax rates push us toward tax-free municipal bonds and tax-efficient ETFs in taxable accounts, while we place tax-inefficient investments in retirement accounts,' he continued. 'This 'tax location' strategy can significantly impact net returns, even if it means accounts perform differently.' 'Two provisions in the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act have created the most anxiety for our clients — the SALT deduction cap and estate tax exemptions,' Horowitz said. 'Both are getting significant relief under the current proposal.' The proposed increase in the SALT deduction cap means retirees will face less of a penalty if they choose to spend their golden years in a state with higher income taxes. 'The SALT deduction increase from $10,000 to $40,000 will reshape where people choose to live and retire,' Horowitz said. 'We've already seen migration patterns shift dramatically since 2017, with high-tax states losing residents to states like Florida and Texas. This change reduces the penalty for living in high-income-tax states, though it doesn't eliminate the advantage of no-tax states entirely.' Estate planning strategies would also change for many Americans if the bill were to pass. 'On the estate side, the current $13.99 million exemption was set to drop to $7.14 million in 2026 — a reduction that had wealthy clients scrambling to implement complex gifting strategies and trust structures,' Horowitz said. 'The proposed permanent increase to $15 million per person, or $30 million for couples, provides enormous relief for families in that middle tier.' This is particularly important because of state-level complications, Horowitz continued. 'Take New York, where you could face no federal estate tax, but still owe state estate taxes on estates between $7.16 million and $13.99 million,' he said. 'The interplay between federal and state rules makes domicile planning critical.' The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' should make estate planning less complex for many people. 'For clients who've already implemented sophisticated estate planning strategies, those structures remain valuable,' Horowitz said. 'But for families with estates under the new thresholds, this eliminates the pressure to make rushed gifting decisions or create complex trusts simply to avoid tax cliffs.' Overall, Horowitz believes the bill will make retirement planning easier. 'The permanent nature of these changes — assuming they pass — finally gives families the certainty to make long-term decisions about where to live, how to structure their wealth and when to implement estate planning strategies,' he said. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on 4 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Fox News

18 minutes ago

• Fox News

Top Trump health official slams Democrats for 'misleading' claims about Medicaid reform

FIRST ON FOX: A top Trump White House official is looking to undercut Senate Democrats' talking points on Medicaid, arguing that the GOP's plan to reform the healthcare program would benefit rural hospitals, not harm them. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz told Fox News Digital that "special interests are pushing misleading talking points to try and stop the most ambitious healthcare reforms ever." Oz's sentiment comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Republicans sprint to finish their work on President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. Part of the bill from the Senate Finance Committee aims to make good on the GOP's promise to root out waste, fraud and abuse within the widely used healthcare program by including work requirements and booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls, among other measures. Tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate have ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., sent a letter to Trump and the top congressional Republicans last week warning that changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate would harm over 300 rural hospitals. And a cohort of Senate Republicans were furious with the change after the bill dropped last week. But Oz contended that "only 5%" of inpatient Medicaid spending happens in rural communities, and that the mammoth bill "instead targets abuses overwhelmingly utilized by large hospitals with well-connected lobbyists." "We are committed to preserving and improving access to care in rural communities with a transformative approach that bolsters advanced technology, invests in infrastructure, and supports workforce — rather than propping up a system that mostly benefits wealthier urban areas," Oz said. Schumer's letter included data from a study recently conducted by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at his behest. He warned that if the bill is passed as is, millions of people would be kicked off of their healthcare coverage, and "rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients." Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer, Wyden and Merkley for comment. However, another report from the Trump-aligned Paragon Health Institute argued similarly to Oz that special interest groups and healthcare lobbyists were "flooding the airwaves with claims" that Republicans' changes to Medicaid would shutter rural hospitals. For example, they argued that a recent report from the Center for American Progress warned that over 200 rural hospitals would be at risk of closure, but that the findings were based on changes to the federal medical assistance percentage, or the amount of Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government. Changes to that percentage were mulled by congressional Republicans but were not included in the "big, beautiful bill." Still, the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, which were a stark departure from the House GOP's version of the bill, angered the Republicans who have warned not to make revisions to the healthcare program that could shut down rural hospitals and boot working Americans from their benefits. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. However, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is working on a possible change to the bill that would create a provider relief fund that could sate her and other Republicans' concerns about the change to the provider tax rate.

Yahoo

23 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) listens during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2025. Credit - Kayla Bartkowski—Getty Images She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them. Write to Nik Popli at