The Texas Ten Commandments law, Senate Bill 10, requires every public school classroom in the state to post a specific version of the Ten Commandments starting with the 2025â2026 school year. Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill during the 89th Legislative Session. A federal district court briefly blocked enforcement, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the statute does not facially violate the Establishment Clause, so the mandate is currently in force while litigation continues.
What Every Classroom Must Display
The statute sets rigid physical standards. Each display must be a durable poster or framed copy measuring at least 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall, printed in a font legible to someone with average eyesight from anywhere in the classroom.1Texas Legislature Online. 89R SB 10 – Bill Text The poster cannot go in a back corner or behind instructional materials. The statute requires a “conspicuous place” in each classroom.
Schools do not get to pick a translation. The law dictates the exact wording, which uses traditional Protestant phrasing beginning with “I AM the LORD thy God” and ending with the prohibition against coveting a neighbor’s possessions. The Texas Attorney General’s office has clarified that displays must contain only this text, with no additional imagery or wording.2Texas Attorney General. Advisory on School District Compliance with Senate Bill 10
Which Schools Have to Comply
The mandate covers all public elementary and secondary schools in Texas, kindergarten through twelfth grade. The requirement applies at the individual classroom level, not just to common areas like hallways or cafeterias. Every teacher’s instructional space must include the display regardless of the subject being taught.1Texas Legislature Online. 89R SB 10 – Bill Text The statute also states that no public school is exempt, closing off any argument that certain campuses or programs fall outside the requirement.
Private and religious schools are not covered. Neither are colleges or universities. The law is aimed squarely at public Kâ12 classrooms.
Who Pays for the Posters
The law uses a donation-first funding model. Any school that does not yet have compliant displays in every classroom must accept privately donated posters or framed copies, provided the donation meets the size and text requirements and contains no additional content.1Texas Legislature Online. 89R SB 10 – Bill Text Community members and outside organizations can supply the materials directly.
If no donations arrive, districts may purchase compliant displays using district funds, but the law does not force them to spend their own money.2Texas Attorney General. Advisory on School District Compliance with Senate Bill 10 The statute does not specify a penalty for a school that has neither received donations nor bought displays on its own. That leaves a gap: a district could technically remain noncompliant without an explicit statutory consequence, though pressure from the Attorney General’s office would likely follow.
Is the Law Actually in Effect?
Yes, at the moment. The path there was contested.
Families represented by the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations sued in federal court, arguing that forcing students to see a specific Protestant rendering of scripture for nearly every hour of the school day violates both the Establishment Clause and the right to free religious exercise. Plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District argued that the mandated text favors one religious tradition over others and sends a message to Hindu, Jewish, and nonreligious students that their beliefs are unwelcome.
A federal district court agreed with the challengers and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 10 in several Texas school districts. In a separate case, Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ordered districts to remove the displays, writing that posting the Ten Commandments as prescribed by SB 10 “violates the Establishment Clause.”
The Fifth Circuit then reversed. Reviewing Nathan, the appellate court concluded that “S.B. 10 bears none of the hallmarks of a founding-era establishment of religion and therefore does not facially violate the Establishment Clause.” The court also rejected the free-exercise claim, finding the law “falls far short of transgressing the Free Exercise Clause.”3U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District Multiple circuit judges dissented, arguing the statute is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs have said they intend to continue the fight, and the case could still reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, SB 10 is enforceable and schools are expected to comply.
Why the Law Exists Now
For over four decades, the leading case on this exact question was Stone v. Graham, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980. Kentucky had passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom, funded entirely by private donations, just like the Texas model. The Court struck it down, holding that the posting had “no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature.” The Court emphasized that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a sacred text” and that private funding did not cure the constitutional problem because the displays still carried the government’s endorsement.4Justia Law. Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980)
Stone applied the three-part test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, which required government actions to have a secular purpose, to neither advance nor inhibit religion in their primary effect, and to avoid excessive entanglement with religion. Under Lemon, classroom Ten Commandments displays were flatly unconstitutional.
The legal ground shifted in 2022 when the Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. A high school football coach lost his job after kneeling for a personal prayer at midfield after games. The Court ruled in his favor, and the majority said courts should interpret the Establishment Clause by “reference to historical practices and understandings” rather than applying the Lemon test.5Supreme Court of the United States. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Under that framework, the question is no longer whether a government action has a secular purpose but whether it fits within the historical traditions of the founding era. Texas legislators read Kennedy as opening a door that Stone had shut. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Nathan reflects that same reading.