Thou Shall Not Ignore Legal Precedent

by Richard Barry

On June 19th, House Bill 71 was signed into law in Louisiana by Gov. Jeff Landry. This means that starting next year, all elementary and secondary schools as well as universities receiving state funding will have to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom

Also not surprising is that three organizations announced they will work together on a challenge to the new law in court. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Freedom from the Religion Foundation issued a join statement saying in part:

“We are preparing a lawsuit to challenge H.B. 71. The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.

As Steve Benen rightly points out “it is easy to imagine this [challenge] succeeding. After all, Louisiana’s new Ten Commandment’s law is a legal, political and theological mess.” The new law not only runs afoul of the First Amendment but also the Supreme Court precedent established in a ruling in 1980 in Stone v. Graham. In that case, the court found that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, commonly understood to refer to the separation of church and state.

Of course, what makes this all so interesting is that there seem be a number of Supreme Court Justices who care little for precedent and who are shockingly amenable to a theocratic approach to American jurisprudence.

But don’t take my word for it, listen to Louisiana Gov. Landry who said a few days before signing the measure into law, “I can’t wait to be sued.”

Perhaps he can’t wait because no matter what the Court chooses to do, Landry will be a star among the party faithful. Or maybe he can’t wait because like many of us he understands that it is unclear what the Court will choose to do on any given case. Add to that the real danger that a number of the justices might twist themselves into knots to promote a Christian nationalist agenda. We can only imagine how the law might be bent to make that happen – or maybe we can’t.?”