The Texas Ten Commandments law, Senate Bill 10, requires every public elementary and secondary school in the state to hang a Ten Commandments poster in each classroom starting with the 2025–2026 school year. Governor Greg Abbott signed it on May 24, 2025.1Texas Legislature Online. History for 89(R) SB 10 by King Whether the posters actually go up depends on where a school sits: federal courts have blocked enforcement in dozens of districts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is deciding whether the mandate can stand.
What the Poster Must Look Like
The law is specific down to the inch. Each classroom display must be a durable poster or framed copy measuring at least 16 inches wide by 20 inches tall, placed in a conspicuous spot, with text legible to someone with average vision from anywhere in the room.2Texas Legislature Online. 89(R) SB 10 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text
The wording is fixed by statute. The poster carries a condensed rendering of the commandments prescribed in the bill itself, opening with “I AM the LORD thy God,” and it may not include any additional content beyond that prescribed text.2Texas Legislature Online. 89(R) SB 10 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text Local school boards have no discretion over the size, placement, or language. Every classroom poster in Texas is meant to look functionally identical.
Which Schools Are Covered
The mandate reaches every public elementary and secondary school governed by the Texas Education Code. SB 10 says no public school is exempt “notwithstanding any other law,” which sweeps in charter schools and specialized campuses.2Texas Legislature Online. 89(R) SB 10 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text
Private schools and homeschools are not covered. They operate outside the statutory framework the law reaches.
Who Pays for the Posters
The law channels most of the cost to private hands. A school that does not have a compliant poster must accept donated ones from individuals or organizations, provided the donation meets the size and text rules and contains nothing extra.2Texas Legislature Online. 89(R) SB 10 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text
Districts may use their own funds to buy posters, but they are not required to. If no donations arrive and a district chooses not to spend its budget, the law does not force a purchase.3Texas Legislature Online. SB 10 Bill Analysis – 89th Legislature In practice, that leaves the pace of compliance to whichever outside groups organize supply.
State Defense for Districts That Get Sued
SB 10 directs the Texas Attorney General to defend any public school sued over compliance with the display requirement. The state assumes liability for expenses, court costs, judgments, and settlements arising from that defense.2Texas Legislature Online. 89(R) SB 10 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text
The provision removes a financial reason a district might otherwise have to refuse. It also cuts the other way: the Attorney General’s office has said it will monitor compliance in coordination with the Texas Education Agency, so a district that declines to post the display faces state pressure from the opposite direction.
Where the Lawsuits Stand
Three federal lawsuits are pinning much of the state’s compliance in place. As of early 2026:
- Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD, filed in July 2025 on behalf of 16 multifaith and nonreligious Texas families. U.S. District Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction in August 2025 blocking the 11 defendant school districts from posting the displays.
- Cribbs Ringer v. Comal ISD, filed on behalf of 15 families across 14 districts. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ordered those districts to remove existing displays by December 1, 2025.
- Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal ISD, a class action filed in December 2025 seeking to block every Texas public school district not already covered by an existing injunction.
The defendants in Nathan appealed. The Fifth Circuit scheduled en banc oral arguments for January 20, 2026, and consolidated the issue with a parallel challenge to Louisiana’s similar law. That appeal will likely decide whether SB 10 survives.
Why the Legal Question Is Genuinely Open
Ten Commandments displays in public schools have been in and out of court for more than forty years, and the current fight sits on a shifting foundation.
Stone v. Graham (1980)
Kentucky passed a law almost identical to SB 10, requiring a privately funded Ten Commandments poster in every public school classroom. The Supreme Court struck it down 5–4, holding that the purpose was “plainly religious in nature” and that private funding did not cure the problem, because posting the text under state authority was itself the violation. The Court noted that the commandments are not confined to secular prohibitions like those against murder and theft, but primarily concern religious duties such as worshipping God and observing the Sabbath.4Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Challengers of SB 10 lean on Stone because the Texas statute closely mirrors the Kentucky one.
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
The Court reached a different result on a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds. A fractured majority held that a passive monument among many historical markers did not violate the Establishment Clause. Justice Breyer’s controlling concurrence emphasized that the monument had stood for 40 years without legal challenge.5Justia. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Supporters of SB 10 cite Van Orden. Opponents point out that the Court itself distinguished it from Stone: a Capitol monument visited by adults is not a poster confronting schoolchildren every day.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
In 2022 the Supreme Court abandoned the Lemon v. Kurtzman test that had governed Establishment Clause cases since 1971. Lower courts were told to interpret the clause by reference to “historical practices and understandings” instead of asking whether a law had a secular purpose, advanced or inhibited religion, and avoided excessive entanglement.4Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Under the old Lemon test, Stone v. Graham would almost certainly doom SB 10. Under the new framework, the answer is unsettled, which is why Texas and Louisiana legislators moved when they did.
The Louisiana Ruling and What It Signals
Louisiana passed a similar classroom display law, House Bill 71, in 2024. A federal district court initially blocked it. On February 20, 2026, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc vacated that injunction on ripeness grounds, holding that the challenge was premature because no displays had been posted in the plaintiff families’ classrooms yet.6United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Roake v. Brumley – En Banc Opinion
The majority reasoned it could not evaluate the displays without knowing their full context: how prominently they would appear, what surrounded them, and whether teachers would reference them during instruction. A concurrence went further, arguing the Lemon test is dead after Kennedy and the law should be upheld outright. Dissenters said Stone v. Graham remains binding and squarely prohibits the mandate.6United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Roake v. Brumley – En Banc Opinion
If the Fifth Circuit applies the same ripeness logic to the Texas cases, the injunctions blocking SB 10 could be lifted before any court rules on the merits. Either way, the question is likely bound for the Supreme Court.
What This Means Right Now
SB 10 is on the books, but enforcement is uneven. Districts covered by an injunction cannot post the displays. Districts named nowhere in a lawsuit technically must comply, though the Ashby class action seeks to extend the block statewide. Some schools have posters up. Others have been ordered to take them down. Many are waiting on the Fifth Circuit.
For a district, the pressure runs both ways. Post the display and risk a federal injunction. Refuse and risk state enforcement action. That standoff will not settle until a court rules on whether a state can require a religious text on the wall of every public school classroom.