网红爆料

SAN ANTONIO, Texas 鈥� A group of sixteen multi-faith and nonreligious Texas families filed suit in federal court today to block a new state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to display a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are represented by the 网红爆料 of Texas, the 网红爆料, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. In their complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Hindu, or nonreligious, assert that Senate Bill 10 violates the First Amendment鈥檚 protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise. The plaintiffs also plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prevent the defendants from implementing the law pending the resolution of the litigation. 鈥淎s a rabbi and public-school parent, I am deeply concerned that S.B. 10 will impose another faith鈥檚 scripture on students for nearly every hour of the school day,鈥� said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her). 鈥淲hile our Jewish faith treats the Ten Commandments as sacred, the version mandated under this law does not match the text followed by our family, and the school displays will conflict with the religious beliefs and values we seek to instill in our child.鈥� 鈥淧osting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,鈥� said plaintiff Pastor Griff Martin (he/him). 鈥淪.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family鈥檚 Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion鈥攕o that our faith may remain free and authentic. My children鈥檚 faith should be shaped by family and our religious community, not by a Christian nationalist movement that confuses God with power.鈥� 鈥淪.B. 10 imposes a specific, rules-based set of norms that is at odds with my Hindu faith,鈥� said plaintiff Arvind Chandrakantan (he/him). 鈥淒isplaying the Ten Commandments in my children's classrooms sends the message that certain aspects of Hinduism 鈥� like believing in multiple paths to God (pluralism) or venerating murthis (statues) as the living, breathing, physical representations of God 鈥� are wrong. Public schools 鈥� and the State of Texas 鈥� have no place pushing their preferred religious beliefs on my children, let alone denigrating my faith, which is about as un-American and un-Texan as one can be." Plaintiff Allison Fitzpatrick (she/her) added: 鈥淲e are nonreligious and don鈥檛 follow the explicitly religious commandments, such as 鈥榬emember the Sabbath.鈥� Every day that the posters are up in classrooms will signal to my children that they are violating school rules.鈥� Signed into law last month, S.B. 10 requires the scriptural postings to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a 鈥渃onspicuous place鈥� in each classroom. The commandments must be printed 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.鈥� The law also mandates that a specific version of the commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. 鈥淪.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver (she/her), senior counsel for the 网红爆料鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淪tates may not require children to attend school and then impose scripture on them everywhere they go.鈥� 鈥淚n a state as diverse as Texas, families from both religious and nonreligious backgrounds are coming together to challenge this unconstitutional law. Their message is clear: Our public schools are not Sunday schools,鈥� said Adriana Pi帽on (she/her), legal director of the 网红爆料 of Texas. 鈥淧oliticians do not get to dictate how or whether students should practice religion. We鈥檙e bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all students, regardless of their faith or nonreligious beliefs, feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools.鈥� 鈥淥ur Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of church-state separation means that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide when and how public-school children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭his law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and over nonreligion 鈥� in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We鈥檙e proud to defend the religious freedom of Texas schoolchildren and their families.鈥� 鈥淥ne need only read the First Commandment (鈥楾hou shalt have no other gods before me鈥�) to see how this state-imposed injunction is the antithesis of the First Amendment and its protections of religious liberty,鈥� says Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭he state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship or whether to worship any gods at all.鈥� 鈥淭he right to be free from government establishment of religion enshrined in the First Amendment is a bedrock principle of our republic,鈥� said Jonathan Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department. 鈥淭his law 鈥� in requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom throughout a child鈥檚 entire public school education 鈥� violates both the ban on establishment of religion as well as the protections the First Amendment gives to free exercise of religion.鈥� The Supreme Court has long prohibited displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Forty-five years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Court struck down a similar Kentucky law. More recently, in Roake v. Brumley, a federal district court reached the same conclusion regarding a similar law in Louisiana. That ruling was unanimously affirmed last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And just last week, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court held that a public school 鈥渂urdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.鈥� A copy of the complaint can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/07/Texas-Ten-Commandments-Complaint-FILED.pdf

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Mahmoud v. Taylor that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow religious opt-outs from any lessons that parents believe will interfere with the religious development of their children, including LGBTQ-themed materials. The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools鈥� ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools鈥� ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections. The case involves a district policy that prohibits all opt-outs from the district鈥檚 English Language Arts curriculum. The curriculum, which includes some LGBTQ-themed books and resources, is secular, age-appropriate, and designed to be inclusive. 鈥淲hile fundamentally important, religious freedom shouldn鈥檛 force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don鈥檛 align with their families鈥� religious views,鈥� said Daniel Mach, director of the 网红爆料鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淭his decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a drastic break from decades of precedent,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 网红爆料. 鈥淔or the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district鈥檚 legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption 鈥� ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.鈥� Deborah Jeon, legal director for the 网红爆料 of Maryland, added: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is deeply disappointing. Our public-education system should be one that embraces differences as an opportunity to foster understanding and bring people together.鈥� In April, the 网红爆料 and the 网红爆料 of Maryland filed an amicus brief arguing that MCPS鈥檚 policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board and should be analyzed under a lower standard of legal review, which the policy easily satisfies. This case is part of the 网红爆料鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

The 网红爆料 has served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.

FAYETTEVILLE, A.R. 鈥� A multifaith group of seven Arkansas families with children in public schools filed suit in federal court today to block a new state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to 鈥減rominently鈥� display the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library. The plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are represented by the 网红爆料 of Arkansas, the 网红爆料, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Arkansas Act 573 of 2025 (鈥淎ct 573鈥�) requires the scriptural displays to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a 鈥渃onspicuous place鈥� in each classroom and library. The text of the Ten Commandments must be printed 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.鈥� The law also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, or nonreligious, assert that Act 573 violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Following this precedent, a federal district court held last year in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to Act 573 violates parents鈥� and students鈥� First Amendment rights. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs here, is currently on appeal. 鈥淎s American Jews, my husband and I deeply value the ability to raise our children in our faith, without interference from the government,鈥� said Plaintiff Samantha Stinson. 鈥淏y imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children.鈥� Plaintiff Carol Vella agreed: 鈥淢y children are among a small number of Jewish students at their school. The classroom displays required by Act 573 will make them feel like they don鈥檛 belong simply because they don鈥檛 follow the government鈥檚 favored religion. The displays will also violate core Jewish tenets, which emphasize tolerance and inclusion and prohibit evangelizing others.鈥� According to the complaint, which includes claims under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, Act 573鈥檚 classroom and library displays will interfere with parents鈥� First Amendment right to direct their children鈥檚 religious upbringing and create a religiously coercive school environment: 鈥淧ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library鈥攔endering them unavoidable鈥攗nconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state鈥檚 favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments鈥攐r, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that Act 573 requires schools to display鈥攄o not belong in their own school community and pressures them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state鈥檚 religious preferences.鈥� In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, which will ask the court to issue an order temporarily preventing implementation of the law, which takes effect on August 5, 2025, while the lawsuit is pending. Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the 网红爆料 added: 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools. Apparently, Arkansas lawmakers need a lesson in the First Amendment.鈥� 鈥淭he right to decide which religious beliefs, if any, to follow belongs to families and faith communities, not the government,鈥� said John Williams, legal director for the 网红爆料 of Arkansas. 鈥淲e will not allow Arkansas politicians to misuse our public schools to impose scripture on children.鈥� FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, 鈥淭his is a clear imposition of religious doctrine on Arkansas public school children. We will fight to uphold this nation鈥檚 foundational constitutional principles.鈥� 鈥淥ur Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of church-state separation means that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide if, when and how public-school children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭his law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion 鈥� in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We鈥檙e proud to defend the religious freedom of Arkansas schoolchildren and their families.鈥� A copy of the complaint can be found here.