Federal appeals court blocks Louisiana's controversial law regarding public schools which put Christianity at the forefront
AP A copy of the Ten Commandments (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File)
A federal appeals court has unanimously blocked Louisiana's controversial law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, marking a significant victory for civil liberties groups and families who argued the mandate violated the constitutional separation of church and state.The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court's November 2024 decision that deemed the law 'facially unconstitutional' under the First Amendment. The law, enacted this year, required all public K-12 schools and state-funded colleges to prominently display a government-approved version of the Ten Commandments, regardless of classroom subject matter. State officials had provided guidelines for the posters, but implementation was suspended pending legal challenges.'Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana,' the court stated. 'The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm.' The ruling cited the precedent set by the 1980 Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar Kentucky law as unconstitutional.
Civil liberties groups hailed the decision as a crucial safeguard for religious freedom and diversity. 'This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,' said Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.' Liz Hayes, spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, added, 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.'
The law had been championed by Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, as part of a broader effort to introduce religious displays in public spaces. Supporters argued the Ten Commandments are foundational to U.S. law and history. However, opponents countered that the mandate would isolate non-Christian students and violate their rights.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill expressed strong disagreement with the ruling, stating her intent to appeal to the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court. The case now moves closer to possible Supreme Court review, which could set a national precedent for similar laws in other states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sharing video footage of polling station breaches voters' privacy: EC officials
Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday (June 21, 2025) said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said that while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Also Read | 'Match is fixed': Rahul Gandhi alleges Election Commission 'deleting evidence' instead of giving answers Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court. Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well as the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
US Chief Justice John Roberts on transgender healthcare: Upholds state bans while sidestepping Trump's agenda; liberals say trans kids left unprotected
US cheif justice John R US chief justice John Roberts has delivered a ruling on transgender healthcare that upholds restrictions but avoids hardline stances, aiming to strike a balance in one of the Supreme Court's most sensitive decisions. Ruling affirms bans, avoids deeper legal precedent In a 24-page opinion issued Wednesday, Roberts upheld Tennessee's law that restricts gender-affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. While affirming the state's authority, Roberts carefully avoided endorsing broader conservative arguments that could have made transgender individuals more vulnerable in other legal contexts. "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." The chief justice said the law classified treatment based on age and medical use, not sex. That explanation avoided the need for a strict constitutional review. Conservative justices push further Some conservatives on the bench pushed for a broader ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas accused medical professionals of compromising their judgment to advance political goals. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her own opinion joined by Thomas, argued transgender people should not be viewed as a protected class deserving heightened legal scrutiny. She also raised concerns about trans participation in sports. Justice Samuel Alito joined in criticising the court's 2020 Bostock decision, which extended workplace protections to gay and trans employees. However, Roberts declined to extend or roll back Bostock in this case. Liberal dissent laments abandonment of trans youth Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal dissenters, strongly objected to the court's refusal to apply stricter legal review. "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims," she wrote. She argued that transgender Americans face discrimination in healthcare, housing, and employment, and that the court's inaction left them "doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination." Trump policies loom over ruling Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders affecting trans Americans, including the expulsion of trans military personnel. Justice Sotomayor highlighted these actions in her dissent, warning that the current federal agenda was amplifying discrimination. Roberts' ruling did not talk directly about these bigger political issues but repeated his earlier calls for judges to stay cautious and limited in their role. During oral arguments in December, he said, "My understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor." Legal and political consequences While the decision supports states like Tennessee for now, civil rights groups say the limited reasoning means it could still be challenged in the future."It's a devastating loss for trans youth and their families," said Cecillia Wang of the ACLU. "But the opinion is cabined both on the record and on doctrine. We live to fight another day."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Farooq Abdullah's Supreme Court warning to Centre over J&K statehood demand
National Conference president Farooq Abdullah on Saturday said that his party would approach the Supreme Court if there was any further delay in the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. **EDS: SCREENSHOT VIA PTI VIDEOS** Anantnag: Jammu and Kashmir National Conference President Farooq Abdullah speaks to the media, at Pahalgam in Anantnag, J&K, Saturday, May 3, 2025. (PTI Photo)(PTI05_03_2025_000498A)(PTI) Abdullah told PTI after a meeting of party workers in the Kokernag area, 'After the elections, people wanted their issues to be resolved immediately, but statehood (not being restored) is stopping us. They have many demands, like they want him (National Conference MLA Altaf Kaloo) to become a minister, but how is this possible till statehood is restored?' Also Read: 'Where is he missing?': Farooq Abdullah rejects Cong's 'gayab' jibe at PM Modi "We are waiting, but if they (Centre) take a long time then we will have no option but to go to the Supreme Court," he added, stating that he was hopeful that after statehood was restored, all powers would be given back. Farooq Abdullah on Israel-Iran conflict Farooq Abdullah stated that he hoped all parties involved in the Israel-Iran conflict would see some sense and that peace would be achieved soon. "I pray that God gives both Israel as well as Iran some sense and gives (Donald) Trump some sense also so that he talks about peace and not war. The issues can only be resolved peacefully, and nothing will be achieved without peace," he said. Also Read: Farooq Abdullah's 'hua to hua' remark on Kashmiri Hindu killings sparks BJP backlash Abdullah also questioned the government regarding the Pahalgam terror attack, which occurred on April 22, when 26 people were killed. "They (Centre) said we ended militancy here, then where did they (Pahalgam attackers) come from? We have so many forces, so many drones, etc. Where did those four attackers come from?" asked Abdullah. "We have not been able to find them yet. We say that we are a powerful nation now and there is no match to us, but we cannot find those four," he said.
