{ "baseline": "2026-10-09", "root": "/education/ten-commandments-public-schools", "sources": { "tx-law": { "title": "Texas SB 10 — enrolled law", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00010F.htm", "note": "Education Code §1.0041; exact statutory display text and funding provisions.", "date": "2025", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "tx-history": { "title": "Texas Legislature — SB 10 history", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB10", "note": "Official history records signing June 20, 2025; controls over district/news references to June 21.", "date": "2025-06-20", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "la-law": { "title": "Louisiana R.S. 17:2124 — Act 676", "url": "https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=1388961", "note": "Current statute: effective June 19, 2024; K–12 and postsecondary requirements differ.", "date": "2024-06-19", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "ar-law": { "title": "Arkansas Act 573 — approved text", "url": "https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R&file=573.pdf&path=%2FACTS%2F2025R%2FPublic%2F", "note": "Page 3 visually checked: voluntary funding rule in (b), public-fund replacement exception in (c).", "date": "2025-04-14", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "al-law": { "title": "Alabama SB 99 — enrolled Act 2026-428", "url": "https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2026RS/SB99-enr.pdf", "note": "§2(a): January 1, 2027 display start; §3: October 1, 2026 effective date.", "date": "2026", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "nathan-opinion": { "title": "Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion", "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50695-CV0.pdf", "note": "Court-authored opinion, No. 25-50695. Majority, concurrences and dissents are distinguished.", "date": "2026-04-21", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "roake-opinion": { "title": "Roake — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion", "url": "https://www.ag.state.la.us/Files/Article/431/Documents/Enbancopinion.pdf", "note": "Court-authored opinion hosted by Louisiana AG; ripeness holding, not a merits endorsement.", "date": "2026-02-20", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "stinson-opinion": { "title": "Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188", "url": "https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/03/Stinson-v.-Fayetteville-SD-Opinion.pdf", "note": "Court-stamped primary document hosted by plaintiffs’ counsel (ACLU), not a counsel press summary. Pages 1–3, 11–14 and 25–26.", "date": "2026-03-16", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "nathan-petition": { "title": "Nathan / Cribbs Ringer — corrected certiorari petition", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-257/420045/20260825123322895_26-%20Corrected%20Petition.pdf", "note": "Party filing and court-opinion appendices on the Supreme Court site; arguments are not holdings.", "date": "2026-08-17", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "roake-petition": { "title": "Brumley v. Roake — conditional petition and appendix", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1360/412795/20260608122008414_25-%20Conditional%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20and%20Appendix%20Volume%201%20of%202%20Pages%201a-242a%20rev.pdf", "note": "State officials and boards petition; includes questions on justiciability and facial validity.", "date": "2026-05-21", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "tea-faq": { "title": "Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ", "url": "https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/89thlege-faqs-june-2026.pdf", "note": "SB 10 section addresses charters, donations, optional purchases and order-specific injunction scope.", "date": "2026-06-18", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "eanes": { "title": "Eanes ISD — legislative updates", "url": "https://www.eanesisd.net/district/legislative", "note": "2026–27 district implementation notice; webpage is undated.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "eanes-faq": { "title": "Eanes ISD — Ten Commandments family FAQ", "url": "https://www.eanesisd.net/post/~board/district-news/post/faqs-on-state-mandated-ten-commandments-posters", "note": "Donor supplied posters for all campuses; summer installation; staff/parent communications and teacher instructions.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "cfisd": { "title": "Cypress-Fairbanks ISD — August 3 family notice", "url": "https://es.cfisd.net/departamentos/comunicaciones/cfisd-communication-messages", "note": "Official communications archive; English notice on Spanish-language site. Supply-based rollout and placement rules.", "date": "2026-08-03", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "csisd": { "title": "College Station ISD — 89th session implementation", "url": "https://www.csisd.org/news/legislative-updates/89th-legislative-session", "note": "SB 10 section: donations for all 19 schools in fall 2025; distribution and placement in progress.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "livingston": { "title": "Livingston Parish School Board — March 19 minutes", "url": "https://delta.creativecirclecdn.com/lpn/files/20260415-013323-fd9-Public%20Notices%204-16-2026.pdf", "note": "Board-authored minutes in April 16 legal-notice publication; page 1, item 8. Layout visually checked.", "date": "2026-03-19", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "brazosport": { "title": "Brazosport ISD — donated posters notice", "url": "https://www.brazosportisd.net/2025-2026_news/donated_ten_commandments_posters", "note": "Donation for every classroom across 17 campuses; receipt is not installation confirmation.", "date": "2025-08-11", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "nd-law": { "title": "North Dakota Century Code ch. 15.1-09", "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t15-1c09.pdf", "note": "§15.1-09-33(35) authorizes displays with other historical documents; §33.5 addresses damages immunity.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "sd-law": { "title": "South Dakota §13-24-17.1", "url": "https://sdlegislature.gov/api/Statutes/13-24.html?all=true", "note": "Authorization with equal-presentation conditions. Adjacent national-motto funding provisions are separate.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "al-history": { "title": "Alabama Legislature — SB 99 enacted history", "url": "https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/bill-search?search=SB99&tab=1", "note": "Live bill modal checked: enacted April 13, 2026; Act 2026-428.", "date": "2026-04-13", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "al-act": { "title": "Alabama Secretary of State — Act 2026-428", "url": "https://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/actdetail.mbr/detail?page=act&year=2026&act=428", "note": "Act link identified in the legislature’s SB 99 record.", "date": "2026", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "tn-history": { "title": "Tennessee HB 47 — enacted history", "url": "https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default?BillNumber=HB0047", "note": "Final authorization, Public Chapter 924; signed May 7, effective July 1. Do not treat superseded Senate mandatory language as law.", "date": "2026-05-14", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "oh-history": { "title": "Ohio SB 34 — current status", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb34/status", "note": "Live legislature checked in browser: House Education referral February 4; House passage and governor stages incomplete.", "date": "2026-02-04", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "oh-text": { "title": "Ohio SB 34 — Senate-passed version", "url": "https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/sb34/02_PS/pdf/", "note": "Proposed legislation; not enacted.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "nathan-docket": { "title": "Supreme Court docket 26-257", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-257.html", "note": "Petition pending; response due October 28; latest listed filing September 28 amicus brief.", "date": "2026-09-28", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "roake-docket": { "title": "Supreme Court docket 25-1360", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1360.html", "note": "Conditional petition pending; September 18 extension sets response due October 19.", "date": "2026-09-18", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "dier-docket": { "title": "Supreme Court docket 26-256", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-256.html", "note": "Petition August 25; September 18 extension sets response due October 28.", "date": "2026-09-18", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "dier-appendix": { "title": "Dier — court orders and complaint appendix", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-256/420047/20260825141046171_Dier%20-%20Petition%20Appendix.pdf", "note": "Contains April 22 dismissal, July 10 summary affirmance and September 23, 2024 complaint.", "date": "2026-08-25", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "stinson-argument": { "title": "Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments", "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?getOA=Select&yymm=202609", "note": "No. 26-1722 argued September 22, 2026; argument is not a decision.", "date": "2026-09-22", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "stinson-opinions": { "title": "Eighth Circuit — opinions for 26-1722", "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opnByCase.pl?caseno=26-1722&getOpn=1", "note": "Official case-opinion search returned “No Opinion Found” at baseline.", "date": "2026-10-09", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "la-guidance": { "title": "Louisiana AG — HB 71 guidance and display models", "url": "https://aglizmurrill.com/Page/HB71", "note": "Linked from official AG Article 431; four model designs, guidance letter and draft board resolution. AG legal position, not a judicial approval.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "la-ag": { "title": "Louisiana AG — notice after Roake decision", "url": "https://www.ag.state.la.us/Article/431", "note": "Implementation position following vacatur; links opinion and prior guidance.", "date": "2026-02-20", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "tx-ag": { "title": "Texas AG — SB 10 legal advisory", "url": "https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Advisory%20on%20Texas%20Law%20Upon%20Enactment%20of%20Senate%20Bill%2010.pdf", "note": "Agency legal position; actual court orders control their named parties.", "date": "2025-10-01", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "roth-petition": { "title": "Roth v. Texas — original petition", "url": "https://www.houstonpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/fs-2026-51730-Original-Petition-3.pdf", "note": "Court-stamped party filing located through Texas Legislative Reference Library. Allegations, not findings. Later operative orders not verified.", "date": "2026-07-30", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "tx-lrl": { "title": "Texas Legislative Reference Library — related case register", "url": "https://lrl.texas.gov/currentissues/clips/resultsLinkclip.cfm?clipID=454585&headline=Galveston+ISD+has+10+days+to+display+the+Ten+Commandments+in+classrooms+after+judge%E2%80%99s+ruling", "note": "Official index identifies Roth No. 2026-51730 and Galveston No. 25-CV-2117; a news-clip title is not the order itself.", "date": "Undated live record", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "galveston-petition": { "title": "Texas v. Galveston ISD — AG petition", "url": "https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Petition_1.pdf", "note": "Party allegations about donated posters and board delay; do not infer a current merits judgment.", "date": "2025-11-07", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "galveston-board": { "title": "Galveston ISD — September 23 board agenda", "url": "https://meetings.boardbook.org/Public/Projector/1941?meeting=765305", "note": "Includes Ten Commandments litigation action item; agenda alone is not a vote outcome.", "date": "2026-09-23", "verified": "2026-10-09" }, "katy": { "title": "Katy ISD — March 2026 donation report", "url": "https://go.boarddocs.com/tx/kisd/Board.nsf/files/DRTL73551C58/%24file/March%202026%20-%20final%20donation%20report.pdf", "note": "Official board report indexed in search; full download blocked during this audit, no totals inferred.", "date": "2026-03", "verified": "2026-10-09" } }, "states": [ { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Required and in effect", "courtStatus": "Certiorari petition pending", "injunctionScope": "Nathan preliminary injunction vacated April 21, 2026. Do not extend this disposition to every separate lawsuit or later order.", "latestFiling": "2026-09-28 — amici brief listed in Supreme Court docket 26-257", "supremeCourt": "26-257 pending; response due 2026-10-28; no grant located", "guidance": "TEA June 18, 2026 FAQ; October 2025 AG advisory", "defense": "AG shall defend compliance claims; state liable for representation expenses, costs, judgments or settlements (§1.0041(g))", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "id": "texas", "name": "Texas", "law": "SB 10 / Education Code §1.0041", "enacted": "2025-06-20", "effective": "2025-09-01", "deadline": "2025–26 school year; donation/purchase mechanics apply", "schools": "Public elementary and secondary schools, including open-enrollment charters", "grades": "Elementary and secondary; no grade exemption", "spaces": "Each classroom, conspicuous placement", "requirement": "Required", "sizeText": "At least 16 inches wide × 20 inches tall; prescribed text only, legible from anywhere in the classroom", "context": "No additional content on the required poster", "donation": "Schools lacking required posters must accept and display compliant privately donated copies", "funding": "District purchases allowed but not required; public funds are not categorically prohibited", "circuit": "Fifth", "sources": [ "tx-law", "tx-history", "tea-faq", "tx-ag", "nathan-opinion", "nathan-docket", "roth-petition" ], "summary": "Texas requires prescribed classroom displays and requires acceptance of qualifying donations. The Fifth Circuit rejected the federal claims in Nathan, but Supreme Court review remains requested—not granted. District notices document different funding and rollout choices.", "timeline": [ [ "2025-06-20", "Governor signed SB 10; official legislative history." ], [ "2025-09-01", "Law effective, applying to the 2025–26 school year." ], [ "2026-04-21", "En banc Fifth Circuit vacated Nathan injunction and rendered dismissal." ], [ "2026-07-30", "Roth filed a separate state-law challenge; current operative orders not verified in this audit." ], [ "2026-08-17", "Nathan / Cribbs Ringer joint certiorari petition filed." ], [ "2026-10-28", "Next known response deadline in docket 26-257; future as of baseline." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Must Texas districts buy the posters?", "No. Section 1.0041(e) permits district spending but does not require it. A school without required displays must accept and display compliant privately donated posters." ], [ "Do charter schools have an exemption?", "No. TEA’s FAQ says the requirement applies to all public schools, including open-enrollment charter schools and districts of innovation." ], [ "Did the Supreme Court approve SB 10?", "No such ruling is recorded in docket 26-257 at this baseline. A pending petition is a request for review." ], [ "Are displays a lesson requirement?", "The cited section regulates displays. Local instructions about classroom discussion must be checked separately; Eanes and CFISD have published their own guidance." ] ], "lawExcerpt": "may, but is not required to, purchase posters or copies that meet the requirements of Subsection (b) using district funds." }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Required and in effect", "courtStatus": "Certiorari petition pending", "injunctionScope": "Roake preliminary injunction vacated as premature. That ruling does not adjudicate every actual display or insulate future as-applied challenges.", "latestFiling": "2026-09-18 — response extensions in 25-1360 and 26-256", "supremeCourt": "Brumley v. Roake 25-1360 conditional petition pending (response October 19); Dier 26-256 pending (response October 28)", "guidance": "AG guidance letter, four sample designs and draft resolution; BESE/department duties in statute", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "id": "louisiana", "name": "Louisiana", "law": "HB 71 / Act 676 / R.S. 17:2124", "enacted": "2024-06-19", "effective": "2024-06-19", "deadline": "2025-01-01 statutory display deadline", "schools": "Public schools and public postsecondary institutions", "grades": "K–12 and postsecondary", "spaces": "Each classroom; local governing authority determines nature of K–12 display", "requirement": "Required", "sizeText": "At least 11 × 14 inches; prescribed text is central focus in large, easily readable font", "context": "K–12 displays include statutory history statement; additional listed historical documents permitted. Postsecondary subsection separately specifies text/size.", "donation": "K–12 authority shall accept donated funds or donated displays to fund them free of charge", "funding": "Law does not require school authorities or postsecondary institutions to spend their own funds; donated funds/displays are specified", "circuit": "Fifth", "sources": [ "la-law", "roake-opinion", "roake-docket", "roake-petition", "dier-docket", "dier-appendix", "la-guidance", "la-ag", "livingston" ], "summary": "Louisiana’s statute combines a mandatory classroom display with local design discretion. Roake removed a preliminary injunction because the challenge depended on undeveloped display context. It did not hold every possible implementation constitutional.", "timeline": [ [ "2024-06-19", "Act 676 effective." ], [ "2025-01-01", "Original statutory deadline." ], [ "2026-02-20", "Roake en banc opinion vacated the preliminary injunction on ripeness grounds." ], [ "2026-03-19", "Livingston Parish board adopted its implementation resolution." ], [ "2026-05-21", "State defendants filed conditional petition in Brumley v. Roake." ], [ "2026-08-25", "Dier petition filed." ], [ "2026-10-19", "Next known response deadline in 25-1360." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Is Louisiana’s requirement currently blocked by Roake?", "The February 20 en banc opinion vacated that preliminary injunction. Its reason was ripeness, not a decision approving every classroom design." ], [ "Can a board add historical context?", "Yes. The law specifies a context statement for K–12 displays, leaves the nature of the display to the authority, and permits listed additional historical documents." ], [ "Does the law cover colleges?", "Yes. Subsection C separately covers each classroom in public postsecondary institutions. Its text should be read separately from K–12 context provisions." ], [ "Do donated posters establish completion?", "No. Acceptance, distribution and actual classroom placement are separate facts. Livingston’s resolution directs implementation; it is not a classroom inventory." ] ], "lawExcerpt": "The nature of the display shall be determined by each governing authority" }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Blocked for named defendants", "courtStatus": "Judgment on appeal", "injunctionScope": "March 16 permanent injunction binds Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Conway and Lakeside defendant districts. Do not describe it as an automatic statewide injunction.", "latestFiling": "Latest verified public event: oral argument 2026-09-22 in 26-1722; latest docket filing not independently established", "supremeCourt": "No Supreme Court petition located for Stinson", "guidance": "Source not located in this audit", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "id": "arkansas", "name": "Arkansas", "law": "Act 573 / Ark. Code §1-4-133", "enacted": "2025-04-14", "effective": "2025-08-05", "deadline": "Duty operates when subsection (b) funds/displays are available", "schools": "Public elementary/secondary schools, public higher education; law also covers public buildings", "grades": "All covered school levels", "spaces": "Classrooms and libraries; additional public buildings/facilities under statute", "requirement": "Required, subject to funding and court orders", "sizeText": "At least 16 × 20 inches; prescribed wording legible from anywhere in room", "context": "Statute calls it a historical representation; no Louisiana-style accompanying history paragraph", "donation": "Initial copies donated or purchased solely from voluntary contributions under subsection (b)", "funding": "Subsection (c) expressly permits public funds or a private donation to replace a nonconforming copy; surplus copies must be donated onward", "circuit": "Eighth", "sources": [ "ar-law", "stinson-opinion", "stinson-argument", "stinson-opinions" ], "summary": "The permanent injunction in Stinson is directed to six defendant school districts. Arkansas’s statute remains an enacted law; the Eighth Circuit heard argument September 22. The official opinion search showed no decision at the October 9 check.", "timeline": [ [ "2025-04-14", "Act 573 approved." ], [ "2025-08-04", "Preliminary injunction entered for the original four districts." ], [ "2025-08-05", "Act effective statewide; other districts were not automatically bound." ], [ "2025-09-10", "Conway added to preliminary injunction." ], [ "2025-11-10", "Lakeside added to preliminary injunction." ], [ "2026-03-16", "Permanent injunction entered for six defendants." ], [ "2026-09-22", "Eighth Circuit heard appeal 26-1722." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Which districts are bound by Stinson?", "Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Conway and Lakeside are the six defendant districts named in the March 16 opinion." ], [ "Is the March order temporary?", "It is a permanent injunction entered at summary judgment. The judgment is on appeal; an appeal alone does not establish that an injunction has been stayed. No superseding stay or appellate merits opinion was located in the reviewed public records." ], [ "Did any classrooms actually display posters?", "The court found Conway hung 850 donated posters in every classroom and documented a Lakeside classroom display before those districts were added to the injunction. Those historical findings do not establish current display." ], [ "Can any public money be used?", "Subsection (b) uses donations/voluntary contributions, but subsection (c) allows public funds for replacement of nonconforming copies. A blanket public-funding prohibition would omit that exception." ] ], "lawExcerpt": "With public funds; or … By accepting a private donation." }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Required; future implementation date", "courtStatus": "No located challenge", "injunctionScope": "No order located in the sources audited; not an exhaustive docket search", "latestFiling": "Not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located in this audit", "guidance": "State Superintendent approval and department free-resource duties are statutory. An approved statewide template and district-specific preparation record were not located in this audit.", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "id": "alabama", "name": "Alabama", "law": "SB 99 / Act 2026-428", "enacted": "2026-04-13", "effective": "2026-10-01", "deadline": "Display duty begins 2027-01-01, subject to available donations determined by State Superintendent", "schools": "Schools under local boards of education; coverage follows §2(a)", "grades": "Fifth–twelfth classrooms where United States history is routinely taught", "spaces": "Specified U.S. history classrooms plus an entryway/common area; common-area subdivision excludes any school serving K–4 students", "requirement": "Required; future display start", "sizeText": "At least 11 × 14 inches; document layout approved by State Superintendent, prescribed heading/text/context", "context": "Historical Truths heading; commandments, John Quincy Adams quotation, historical documents and acknowledgment of student/family faith choice", "donation": "Subject to donated funds or displays, availability determined by State Superintendent", "funding": "Local boards are not required to spend their own funds; may accept donated funds/displays", "circuit": "Eleventh", "sources": [ "al-law", "al-history", "al-act" ], "summary": "Alabama’s effective date has passed, but the classroom display duty has a later start. The statute targets U.S. history classrooms in grades 5–12 and separately addresses common areas, with a K–4 exception and a donation contingency.", "timeline": [ [ "2026-03-31", "Senate passed SB 99." ], [ "2026-04-09", "House passed; bill delivered to governor." ], [ "2026-04-13", "Official history records enactment, Act 2026-428." ], [ "2026-10-01", "Act effective." ], [ "2027-01-01", "Future start for donation-dependent display duty." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Were Alabama classroom displays required on October 1?", "Section 3 made the act effective October 1, 2026. Section 2(a) separately starts the display duty January 1, 2027, subject to donation availability." ], [ "Does every grade 5–12 classroom qualify?", "The classroom provision covers rooms where United States history is routinely taught under the Alabama Course of Study, not every subject room." ], [ "What does the common-area exception say?", "The common-area subdivision does not apply to any school that serves students in kindergarten through fourth grade. Apply that statutory wording when evaluating a mixed-grade campus." ], [ "Has a statewide approved design been located?", "Not in this audit. Approval by the State Superintendent is required. A private poster offer alone does not establish approval or district implementation." ] ], "lawExcerpt": "Beginning January 1, 2027, and subject to the availability of donated funds or donated displays" }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Authorized, not required", "courtStatus": "No located challenge", "injunctionScope": "No order located in the sources audited; not an exhaustive docket search", "latestFiling": "Not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located in this audit", "guidance": "Source not located in this audit", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "id": "tennessee", "name": "Tennessee", "law": "HB 47 / Public Chapter 924 (2026)", "enacted": "2026-05-07", "effective": "2026-07-01", "deadline": "No mandatory display deadline in the enacted authorization described by official history", "schools": "Local education agencies and public charter schools", "grades": "No narrower grade limit identified in official enacted summary", "spaces": "Prominent location in a school building", "requirement": "Authorized, not required", "sizeText": "Final chapter details should be consulted; earlier mandatory Senate amendment is not the final law", "context": "Authorization pairs Ten Commandments with specified Declaration and U.S. Constitution passages", "donation": "Final operative donation detail not fully audited; no district transaction inferred", "funding": "Detailed final funding provisions not verified in this baseline", "circuit": "Sixth", "sources": [ "tn-history" ], "summary": "The final enacted summary authorizes local boards and charter governing bodies to allow displays. Earlier Senate mandatory language was superseded through conference. Database-only coverage pending local implementation evidence." }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Authorized, not required", "courtStatus": "No located challenge", "injunctionScope": "No order located in the sources audited; not an exhaustive docket search", "latestFiling": "Not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located in this audit", "guidance": "Source not located in this audit", "defense": "§15.1-09-33.5 provides specified school personnel/entities immunity from damages; this is not an assurance against federal constitutional relief", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "id": "north-dakota", "name": "North Dakota", "law": "N.D.C.C. §15.1-09-33(35); §15.1-09-33.5", "enacted": "2021 law; current code verified", "effective": "Current code in force; original effective day not separately audited", "deadline": "No mandatory display deadline", "schools": "Schools within authorizing school district", "grades": "Not narrowed in cited authorization", "spaces": "School and classroom", "requirement": "Authorized, not required", "sizeText": "No dimensions or prescribed wording in cited subsection", "context": "Ten Commandments with other historical documents", "donation": "No donation condition specified in cited subsection", "funding": "No special funding rule in cited authorization", "circuit": "Eighth", "sources": [ "nd-law" ], "summary": "The current code gives boards authority to permit displays with other historical documents. It does not command each district to install them." }, { "lawStatus": "Enacted", "implementation": "Authorized, not required", "courtStatus": "No located challenge", "injunctionScope": "No order located in the sources audited; not an exhaustive docket search", "latestFiling": "Not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located in this audit", "guidance": "Source not located in this audit", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "id": "south-dakota", "name": "South Dakota", "law": "S.D.C.L. §13-24-17.1 (2000 ch. 79)", "enacted": "2000; current codification verified", "effective": "Current code in force; original effective day not separately audited", "deadline": "No mandatory display deadline", "schools": "Public schools", "grades": "Not narrowed in cited authorization", "spaces": "Classrooms, school buildings and public school events", "requirement": "Authorized, not required", "sizeText": "Same general manner/appearance as accompanying documents; cannot draw separate attention", "context": "Alongside cultural, legal or historical documents influencing U.S. and South Dakota government", "donation": "No donation condition specified in §13-24-17.1", "funding": "No special funding provision in this section; national-motto sections are separate", "circuit": "Eighth", "sources": [ "sd-law" ], "summary": "South Dakota permits contextual displays under equal-presentation conditions. Its separate national-motto mandate must not be counted as a Ten Commandments mandate." }, { "lawStatus": "Proposed", "implementation": "Unknown", "courtStatus": "No located challenge", "injunctionScope": "No order located in the sources audited; not an exhaustive docket search", "latestFiling": "Not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located in this audit", "guidance": "Source not located in this audit", "defense": "No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section", "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "id": "ohio", "name": "Ohio", "law": "SB 34, 136th General Assembly", "enacted": "Not enacted in reviewed current record", "effective": "Not applicable — proposal", "deadline": "Senate text says July 1, 2026, but bill remains unenacted; that text creates no current deadline", "schools": "Proposed public-school historical-document displays", "grades": "Proposed grades 4–12 history or social-studies classrooms", "spaces": "Proposed classroom displays; optional school-ground monuments", "requirement": "Proposed", "sizeText": "Senate-passed proposal selects at least four listed documents; Ten Commandments is one option, not individually mandatory", "context": "Proposed displays must be reasonably visible and accompanied by educational historical-importance description", "donation": "Proposed duty applies on receipt of donated funds/displays; board need not accept conditional donations", "funding": "Proposal offers donated funding/displays to provide displays free of charge", "circuit": "Sixth", "sources": [ "oh-history", "oh-text" ], "summary": "SB 34 passed the Senate November 19, 2025 and was referred to House Education February 4, 2026. It proposes at least four selected historical documents in grade 4–12 history/social-studies rooms, with donations. Ten Commandments is an option, not an individually mandatory selection. No enacted duty is established." } ], "cases": [ { "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "permanent": "No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record", "appeal": "En banc disposition April 21; related Cribbs Ringer judgment May 29 included in joint petition", "supremeCourt": "Petition filed August 17; docketed August 27, 2026; no certiorari grant recorded", "nextDeadline": "2026-10-28 — response due after extension", "latestFiling": "2026-09-28 — Professors Mark Storslee et al. amicus brief listed on Supreme Court docket", "filingDate": "2025-07-02 (Nathan; petition’s procedural history)", "id": "nathan-v-alamo-heights-isd", "name": "Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD", "state": "texas", "docket": "W.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00756; Fifth Circuit 25-50695; Supreme Court 26-257", "court": "Fifth Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court", "law": "Texas SB 10", "parties": "Parents and children v. school districts; Texas intervened. Joint certiorari petition also covers Cribbs Ringer v. Comal ISD.", "claims": "Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause; parents’ direction of religious upbringing and children’s religious freedom", "status": "Certiorari petition pending", "posture": "April 21 en banc merits judgment reversed district judgment, vacated preliminary injunction and rendered dismissal; petition seeks review", "preliminary": "Granted August 20, 2025; vacated April 21, 2026", "scope": "Nathan appellate judgment resolves the litigated federal claims. Fifth Circuit precedent is not a Supreme Court ruling of nationwide validity and does not decide the separate Roth state-law claims.", "sources": [ "nathan-opinion", "nathan-petition", "nathan-docket", "tx-law", "tea-faq" ], "summary": "Nathan is the Texas merits decision. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected the federal constitutional claims; families then requested Supreme Court review. The docket records a pending petition and an October 28 response deadline, not an agreement to hear the case.", "analysis": [ [ "What the majority decided", "The court treated Texas’s fixed-text display rule as ripe for review and rejected both constitutional claims. Its analysis emphasized historical practice and the difference it drew between a passive display and compelled religious observance. The operative judgment reverses, vacates and renders dismissal; it does not simply send the preliminary-injunction question back." ], [ "What the challengers dispute", "The corrected petition asks whether state-selected permanent classroom displays violate the Establishment Clause and burden parents’ and children’s free-exercise rights. It relies on Stone v. Graham and Mahmoud v. Taylor and contests the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of those precedents. These are the petitioners’ legal arguments, not Supreme Court findings." ], [ "Why Louisiana was treated differently", "Roake involved unresolved questions about local display design, accompanying materials and classroom use. Nathan addressed Texas’s more prescriptive wording and content rule. The procedural distinction is central: one en banc opinion rejected claims on the merits; the other vacated preliminary relief as premature." ], [ "How to read the Supreme Court docket", "The petition joins Nathan and Cribbs Ringer under one docket. The August filing, September extension and amicus filings are procedural steps. No grant or denial is shown at the baseline. The Court can change a briefing deadline or dispose of a petition later; this page reports only the dated record." ] ], "timeline": [ [ "2025-07-02", "Nathan suit filed in the Western District of Texas." ], [ "2025-08-20", "District court entered preliminary relief." ], [ "2026-04-21", "En banc Fifth Circuit reversed, vacated and rendered dismissal." ], [ "2026-05-29", "Related Cribbs Ringer appellate judgment later included in joint petition." ], [ "2026-08-17", "Joint certiorari petition filed." ], [ "2026-09-14", "Response extension granted to October 28." ], [ "2026-09-28", "Latest listed amicus filing at baseline." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Has the Supreme Court taken Nathan?", "No grant is recorded as of October 9, 2026. Docket 26-257 is a pending petition." ], [ "Is the old Nathan injunction still the current order?", "The April 21 en banc judgment vacated it and rendered dismissal. A historical account of the 2025 injunction does not establish the current position." ], [ "Does Nathan resolve every Texas challenge?", "No. The federal claims and litigants in this judgment must be distinguished from separate state-law claims and other orders. The joint petition also includes Cribbs Ringer; it does not merge every Texas dispute." ] ] }, { "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "permanent": "No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record", "appeal": "En banc ruling February 20, 2026", "supremeCourt": "Conditional petition filed May 21, 2026 by Brumley and others; no grant recorded", "nextDeadline": "2026-10-19 — response due", "latestFiling": "2026-09-18 — order extending time to respond", "filingDate": "Original filing date not independently established in this baseline", "id": "roake-v-brumley", "name": "Roake v. Brumley", "state": "louisiana", "docket": "M.D. La. 3:24-cv-00517; Fifth Circuit 24-30706; Supreme Court 25-1360 (Brumley v. Roake)", "court": "Fifth Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court", "law": "Louisiana HB 71 / Act 676", "parties": "Parents and children v. Louisiana education officials and parish boards; Supreme Court petition filed by state defendants and four boards", "claims": "Facial Establishment Clause and Free Exercise challenge", "status": "Certiorari petition pending", "posture": "February 20 en banc court vacated preliminary injunction as premature; constitutional merits not decided by that disposition", "preliminary": "2024 preliminary injunction vacated February 20, 2026", "scope": "Appeal involved state education officials and East Baton Rouge, Livingston, Vernon and St. Tammany boards. The vacatur does not preapprove a particular district display or bar a developed as-applied claim.", "sources": [ "roake-opinion", "roake-petition", "roake-docket", "la-law", "la-guidance" ], "summary": "Roake turns on ripeness. The en banc court vacated preliminary relief because the constitutional questions depended on actual display context. State defendants’ conditional Supreme Court petition is captioned Brumley v. Roake, reversing the lower-court name order.", "analysis": [ [ "What ripeness means here", "The majority identified facts that remained unresolved: placement, prominence, additional content and how teachers would use the display. Louisiana delegates the nature of the display to local authorities within minimum statutory requirements. The court would not decide those contextual questions in the abstract." ], [ "What the ruling leaves open", "The majority expressly framed the question as whether the dispute was fit for judicial resolution, rather than whether HB 71 was constitutional. Future challenges to actual implementations require their own record. A local board resolution and an installed classroom display therefore matter in ways a generic law summary cannot capture." ], [ "The competing legal positions", "The parents allege government promotion of religion and interference with family religious upbringing. State officials argue that historical context can support lawful displays and that the pre-enforcement challenge is nonjusticiable. The guidance models express the AG’s position; a guidance letter is not a judgment validating a selected design." ], [ "Why the Supreme Court caption changes", "The parties seeking review are Brumley and other defendants below. Their conditional petition asks about justiciability and whether HB 71 is facially unconstitutional under either religion clause. Docket 25-1360 remains pending, and the listed response deadline is October 19. Dier is a separate Louisiana petition under docket 26-256." ] ], "timeline": [ [ "2024", "District court entered preliminary injunction." ], [ "2026-02-20", "Full Fifth Circuit vacated preliminary relief on ripeness grounds." ], [ "2026-05-21", "Conditional petition filed in Brumley v. Roake." ], [ "2026-06-08", "Petition docketed as 25-1360." ], [ "2026-07-28", "Supreme Court requested a response." ], [ "2026-09-18", "Response deadline extended to October 19." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Did Roake decide HB 71 constitutional?", "The en banc disposition did not decide that merits question. It vacated preliminary relief as premature." ], [ "Why is the Supreme Court case Brumley v. Roake?", "Brumley and other state defendants are the petitioners seeking review. The lower-court litigation is commonly referred to as Roake v. Brumley." ], [ "Can every Louisiana display be treated alike?", "No. Placement, context, accompanying materials and use can differ. The opinion specifically identifies those facts as important to constitutional review." ] ] }, { "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": true, "permanent": "Granted March 16, 2026 against six defendant districts", "appeal": "26-1722 pending; oral argument September 22, 2026; official search returned no opinion at baseline", "supremeCourt": "No petition located", "nextDeadline": "No next deadline located", "latestFiling": "Latest verified public event is September 22 argument; a complete current appellate filing ledger was not obtained", "filingDate": "Original filing date not independently established in this baseline", "id": "stinson-v-fayetteville", "name": "Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1", "state": "arkansas", "docket": "W.D. Ark. 5:25-cv-05127; Eighth Circuit 26-1722", "court": "Western District of Arkansas / Eighth Circuit", "law": "Arkansas Act 573", "parties": "Parents and children v. Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Conway and Lakeside districts; Arkansas officials intervened", "claims": "Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause", "status": "Judgment on appeal", "posture": "Plaintiffs won summary judgment March 16, 2026; six defendants permanently enjoined; appeal argued September 22", "preliminary": "Original four districts August 4, 2025; Conway September 10; Lakeside November 10", "scope": "Six named defendant districts, not an automatic injunction against every Arkansas school district or public building", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion", "stinson-argument", "stinson-opinions", "ar-law" ], "summary": "Stinson produced a permanent injunction after a developed factual record, including actual classroom displays in Conway and Lakeside. The appeal is in the Eighth Circuit, so the Fifth Circuit’s Texas decision is not itself the appellate ruling in this case.", "analysis": [ [ "The operative order", "Document 188 grants the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion, denies the state’s motion and permanently enjoins the defendants from complying with Act 573. “Permanent” identifies the final form of district-court relief; it does not mean appellate review is unavailable." ], [ "Who is bound", "The six defendant districts are Fayetteville No. 1, Springdale No. 50, Bentonville No. 6, Siloam Springs No. 21, Conway No. 1 and Lakeside No. 9. The opinion itself explains that other districts displayed posters while the first four were enjoined. That history demonstrates why a statewide statutory requirement and the reach of an injunction must be separate database fields." ], [ "Why the local evidence matters", "The court found Conway had received 850 posters and placed them in every classroom. It also described pastors’ donations covering Garland County classrooms and a display in a Lakeside plaintiff’s classroom. These facts helped establish actual injury and distinguish the record from uncertainty about hypothetical displays. They are historical findings, not a survey of rooms on October 9." ], [ "Positions and appellate limits", "State intervenors defended the law; parents challenged religious endorsement and burdens on family religious exercise. The district court ruled for the parents. The Eighth Circuit’s September argument record confirms the appeal is proceeding, while its case-opinion search showed no opinion. A complete live docket and any later stay must be checked before a school relies on this tracker for action." ] ], "timeline": [ [ "2025-08-04", "Four original districts preliminarily enjoined." ], [ "2025-08-05", "Act took effect for districts not enjoined." ], [ "2025-08-28", "Conway families moved to join." ], [ "2025-09-10", "Conway added to injunction." ], [ "2025-10-23", "Lakeside family joined the suit." ], [ "2025-11-10", "Lakeside added to injunction." ], [ "2026-03-16", "Permanent injunction and summary judgment." ], [ "2026-09-22", "Eighth Circuit oral argument, appeal 26-1722." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Is Stinson a statewide injunction?", "The operative relief reviewed here binds six named defendant districts. It should not be restated as automatically binding every Arkansas school." ], [ "Does an appeal cancel the permanent injunction?", "Filing or arguing an appeal does not by itself establish a stay. No superseding stay was located in the reviewed public records." ], [ "Did the Eighth Circuit decide the appeal?", "No opinion was returned by its official case search at the October 9 baseline. Oral argument occurred September 22." ] ] }, { "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "permanent": "No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record", "appeal": "Summary affirmance July 10, 2026", "supremeCourt": "Petition filed August 25; docketed August 27; pending", "nextDeadline": "2026-10-28 — response due", "latestFiling": "2026-09-18 — response extension order", "filingDate": "2024-09-23", "id": "dier-v-landry", "name": "Dier v. Landry", "state": "louisiana", "docket": "E.D. La. 2:24-cv-02306; Fifth Circuit 26-30243; Supreme Court 26-256", "court": "Fifth Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court", "law": "Louisiana HB 71", "parties": "Teacher Christopher Dier v. governor and Louisiana education/AG officials", "claims": "Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech", "status": "Certiorari petition pending", "posture": "April 22 dismissal; July 10 summary affirmance; certiorari requested", "preliminary": "Request denied as moot with dismissal April 22, 2026", "scope": "Separate teacher challenge; do not merge docket or deadline with Brumley v. Roake", "sources": [ "dier-docket", "dier-appendix" ], "summary": "Dier adds a teacher’s speech and religion claims to the Louisiana record. The Supreme Court docket verifies a pending petition. Kept in the database rather than publishing an overlapping, short standalone case page." }, { "verified": "2026-10-09", "published": false, "permanent": "No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record", "appeal": "Not applicable / not located", "supremeCourt": "No petition located", "nextDeadline": "No next deadline located", "latestFiling": "Latest primary filing reviewed: original petition, 2026-07-30; not represented as latest docket entry", "filingDate": "2026-07-30", "id": "roth-v-texas", "name": "Roth v. State of Texas", "state": "texas", "docket": "Harris County 215th District Court, 2026-51730", "court": "Texas state district court", "law": "Texas SB 10", "parties": "Three parents v. Texas, AG, education commissioner, Spring Branch ISD, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD and Houston ISD", "claims": "Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Texas Constitution article I, §37 parental rights; petition also seeks damages from Spring Branch", "status": "Unknown/not located", "posture": "Complaint filed is verified; current operative injunction ruling not independently verified", "preliminary": "Requested; later operative order not located in this audit", "scope": "Separate state-law case. Petition allegations about displays are not court findings or a statewide noncompliance assessment.", "sources": [ "roth-petition", "tx-lrl" ], "summary": "This case raises state-law grounds distinct from Nathan’s federal claims. The court-stamped petition is verified; the current order needs further primary-record review." } ], "districts": [ { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "August 3, 2026 district family notice describes current rollout; no separate board adoption vote located", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Private donations only under district choice; inventory distributed systematically across eligible classrooms as supply permits", "design": "Upper left corner of standard classroom bulletin boards; consistent wall location if no board. District calls displays passive fixtures, not instructional materials.", "campuses": "Eligible instructional spaces; notice says many classrooms. No districtwide installed total supplied.", "guidance": "District explicitly declines public purchasing, though Texas law permits it. Office of Chief of Staff handles inquiries and additional donation offers centrally.", "grievances": "Nathan federal litigation and July 30 Roth state-law petition name CFISD. Latest operative Roth order not verified; no grievance disposition located.", "status": "Implementing", "sources": [ "cfisd", "tx-law", "tea-faq", "nathan-opinion", "nathan-docket", "roth-petition" ], "timeline": [ [ "2025–26", "CFISD reports it was subject to a court injunction during that school year." ], [ "2026-04-21", "Nathan en banc judgment vacated the preliminary injunction." ], [ "2026-07-30", "Roth petition named CFISD among defendants; allegations remain separate from findings." ], [ "2026-08-03", "Family notice explains donations, placement and central inquiries." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Has CFISD confirmed every classroom is finished?", "No complete installed count appears in the reviewed notice. It describes distribution as donated inventory permits, so the status is implementing." ], [ "Are taxpayers required to purchase CFISD posters?", "CFISD chose not to spend public funds. This is a district choice; SB 10 allows but does not require district purchases." ], [ "Where are the displays placed?", "The notice specifies the upper left corner of standard classroom bulletin boards, or a consistent location on a wall where there is no board." ], [ "Is Roth the same lawsuit as Nathan?", "No. Roth asserts Texas statutory and state constitutional claims. Its July 30 petition is verified, but the current operative ruling was not established in this audit." ] ], "id": "cypress-fairbanks-isd", "name": "Cypress-Fairbanks ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 5, 5, 5, 4 ], "summary": "CFISD’s August 3, 2026 notice describes distributing donated inventory as supplies permit, a uniform placement rule, and a district choice not to spend public funds on posters. It is also named in the separate Roth state-law petition.", "reason": "Large local audience, exact placement instructions, inventory-based rollout and distinct pending state-law claims support recurring coverage.", "caseIds": [ "nathan-v-alamo-heights-isd", "roth-v-texas" ], "total": 19, "rank": 1 }, { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "District FAQ records staff message July 29 and parent message August 5, 2026; maintenance/operations began installation during summer", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Unaffiliated individual contacted campus principals for classroom counts and donated compliant posters for all campuses; district says it did not buy or create them", "design": "State-prescribed text; maintenance staff used similar placements throughout campuses", "campuses": "All campuses and classrooms are the stated donation/installation scope; room-by-room completion not independently audited", "guidance": "Teachers are to explain the poster is required by law; content questions go to parents, without substantive answers by staff. FAQ also describes religious-accommodation support.", "grievances": "FAQ directs discomfort, exclusion or targeting concerns to teacher, counselor or school administrator. No specific completed local grievance was located.", "status": "Implementing", "sources": [ "eanes", "eanes-faq", "tx-law", "tea-faq", "nathan-docket" ], "timeline": [ [ "Summer 2026", "Maintenance and operations began installing donated posters; district FAQ." ], [ "2026-07-29", "Staff message about installation, as reported in FAQ." ], [ "2026-08-05", "Parent message about compliance, as reported in FAQ." ], [ "2026-10-09", "FAQ and legislative page checked; complete room inventory not located." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Does Eanes display the Ten Commandments?", "The district says it is displaying donated posters and describes summer installation. We classify the documented rollout as implementing because the sources do not provide a verified completion inventory for every room." ], [ "Did Eanes spend money buying the posters?", "Its FAQ says no: an unaffiliated individual donated them after contacting each campus about classroom counts." ], [ "What should a family expect if a student asks about the poster?", "Eanes says staff explain that it is posted because of Texas law. Questions about its content are referred to parents. Families may bring concerns about exclusion or targeting to school staff." ] ], "id": "eanes-isd", "name": "Eanes ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 5, 5, 4, 4 ], "summary": "Eanes documents an individual donor supplying posters for every classroom on all campuses, summer installation by maintenance staff, and specific instructions for teachers when students ask about the content.", "reason": "Distinct parent guidance, donor pathway, installation account and dated communications provide a useful local answer beyond the statute.", "caseIds": [ "nathan-v-alamo-heights-isd" ], "total": 18, "rank": 2 }, { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "March 19, 2026 special board meeting, item 8: adopted Act 676 implementation resolution", "vote": "7 yes, 0 no recorded: Sharp, Bradley Harris, Cecil Harris, Cox, Cockerham, McMorris and Link; two members absent from meeting attendance", "donation": "Resolution authorizes procuring/accepting donated posters and distribution; it does not supply donor names, delivered count or installation inventory", "design": "At least 11 × 14 inches; statutory text central in readable font. Board recognizes discretion over nature of display and directs compliance with law.", "campuses": "Each classroom in each school under the board; completion not independently verified", "guidance": "Board president reported guidance from governor, AG and BESE permitting implementation after litigation; exact underlying communications were not separately obtained", "grievances": "Livingston is a Roake defendant board. February 20 vacatur concerns that preliminary injunction; pending conditional petition does not itself prohibit implementation.", "status": "Implementing", "sources": [ "livingston", "la-law", "roake-opinion", "roake-docket", "la-guidance" ], "timeline": [ [ "2026-02-20", "Roake preliminary injunction vacated." ], [ "2026-03-19", "Special meeting adopted implementation resolution, item 8." ], [ "2026-04-16", "Minutes published in public-notice edition." ], [ "2026-10-09", "Board decision verified; a completed installation roster not located." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Did Livingston’s board vote on displays?", "Yes. Item 8 of the March 19 minutes records the resolution and seven affirmative votes." ], [ "Does the resolution prove every poster is installed?", "No. It assigns procurement, distribution and legal compliance responsibilities. An installation completion report was not located." ], [ "Who carries out the board’s decision?", "The superintendent or designee is directed to implement the requirement. The resolution also assigns administration responsibility for monitoring legal developments." ], [ "Who pays?", "The resolution describes voluntary funding without cost to the school board. It does not document individual donations or amounts received." ] ], "id": "livingston-parish", "name": "Livingston Parish School Board", "state": "louisiana", "score": [ 5, 4, 4, 4 ], "summary": "At its March 19, 2026 special meeting, the board adopted a resolution directing classroom displays, assigning implementation to the superintendent and keeping the project voluntary in funding. Published minutes record seven yes votes.", "reason": "Recorded vote, detailed implementation delegation and direct connection to Roake distinguish this local record.", "caseIds": [ "roake-v-brumley" ], "total": 17, "rank": 3 }, { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "No separate board vote record obtained; classroom implementation and subsequent removal order are documented by the court", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Court found Conway received 850 posters by August 4, 2025", "design": "Court discusses classroom placement and includes display evidence; this is historical litigation evidence, not a current campus inspection", "campuses": "Court found a poster in every classroom before Conway was enjoined; no current physical inventory audited", "guidance": "Operative reviewed restriction is the March 16 permanent injunction against named defendants; separate local counsel advice not public in reviewed record", "grievances": "Families moved to join Stinson August 28; Conway added to preliminary injunction September 10. Court found actual classroom exposure.", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion", "stinson-argument", "stinson-opinions", "ar-law" ], "timeline": [ [ "2025-08-04", "By this date Conway had received 850 posters, according to the court." ], [ "2025-08-28", "Conway families moved to join the suit." ], [ "2025-09-10", "Court added Conway to preliminary injunction." ], [ "2026-03-16", "Permanent injunction included Conway." ], [ "2026-09-22", "Eighth Circuit heard appeal." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Did Conway actually put up posters?", "Yes, historically. Document 188 says it received 850 and hung a poster in every classroom. That finding concerns the period before Conway was enjoined." ], [ "Can that count be used as today’s installed total?", "No. Conway was added to the injunction in September 2025 and is a defendant under the March 2026 permanent order. The number describes the historical record." ], [ "Does Conway’s order bind every Arkansas district?", "No. The reviewed order binds the six defendant districts, including Conway." ], [ "Has the appellate court changed the result?", "The official Eighth Circuit opinion search returned no opinion at the baseline. Oral argument occurred September 22; no superseding stay was located in the reviewed records." ] ], "id": "conway", "name": "Conway School District No. 1", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 5, 5, 3, 4 ], "summary": "The Stinson opinion records 850 posters received by August 4, 2025 and displayed in every Conway classroom. Conway was later added to the preliminary injunction and is one of the six districts bound by the March 16 permanent order.", "reason": "A quantified donation and court-confirmed implementation history support a differentiated explanation of the later injunction.", "caseIds": [ "stinson-v-fayetteville" ], "total": 17, "rank": 4 }, { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "Separate board approval/vote not located; court documents actual display and later injunction", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Court describes a group of pastors donating enough posters for every classroom in Garland County, including Lakeside; Lakeside-specific quantity not given", "design": "Historical classroom display documented in opinion’s factual discussion; no current installation audit or independent design approval record", "campuses": "At least the plaintiff child’s classroom display is documented. Countywide donation supply does not prove installation in every district room.", "guidance": "Court’s March 16 permanent injunction applies to Lakeside; separate local legal advice not located", "grievances": "Lakeside family joined suit October 23, 2025; district added to preliminary injunction November 10, according to March opinion", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion", "stinson-argument", "stinson-opinions", "ar-law" ], "timeline": [ [ "2025", "Pastors donated posters for Garland County classrooms; court documents a Lakeside classroom display." ], [ "2025-10-23", "Lakeside family joined Stinson." ], [ "2025-11-10", "Lakeside added to preliminary injunction." ], [ "2026-03-16", "Permanent injunction included Lakeside." ], [ "2026-09-22", "Eighth Circuit argument." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Was a Lakeside classroom display documented?", "Yes. The March opinion describes a poster in the plaintiff child’s classroom. That is stronger than a donation offer, but it is historical evidence before the injunction." ], [ "Were all Lakeside classrooms verified?", "No. The opinion describes sufficient countywide donations and a specific classroom display; that is not a verified installation inventory for all Lakeside rooms." ], [ "Which Lakeside district is this?", "Lakeside School District No. 9 in the Garland County record described by Stinson. The court caption and factual discussion identify the defendant." ], [ "Is Lakeside covered by the permanent order?", "Yes. It is one of six named defendant districts permanently enjoined March 16, 2026. The judgment is on appeal." ] ], "id": "lakeside", "name": "Lakeside School District No. 9", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 5, 5, 3, 3 ], "summary": "The Stinson court describes donated posters supplied by pastors for Garland County classrooms and a display in a Lakeside plaintiff’s classroom. Lakeside joined the injunction later than the original four districts and is now within the six-district permanent order.", "reason": "Distinct donation origin, actual exposure record and later injunction date make the local history independently useful.", "caseIds": [ "stinson-v-fayetteville" ], "total": 16, "rank": 5 }, { "published": true, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "Official legislative implementation page states the district funding/rollout decision; separate board vote/date not located", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Private donations accepted for all 19 schools in fall 2025", "design": "District explains prescribed translation, 16 × 20 minimum and legibility from anywhere in classroom; installed copies not separately inspected", "campuses": "19 schools received donated supply according to district; complete room-level placement not verified", "guidance": "District explains mandatory acceptance of compliant donations and optional public purchases, then states its own decision not to purchase", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementing", "sources": [ "csisd", "tx-law", "tea-faq" ], "timeline": [ [ "2025-09-01", "SB 10 took effect." ], [ "Fall 2025", "District says it accepted donations for all 19 schools." ], [ "Undated live update", "Posters distributed to schools and being placed as soon as practically possible." ], [ "2026-10-09", "Implementation page checked; no later completion certification located." ] ], "answers": [ [ "Does College Station have donated posters?", "Yes. Its official page reports donations for all 19 schools in fall 2025 and distribution to schools." ], [ "Is installation complete everywhere?", "The reviewed text says posters are being placed as soon as practically possible. It supplies no final installation date or classroom-by-classroom total." ], [ "Did the district buy them?", "The district says it opted not to use district funds. The statute itself permits purchases but does not compel them." ], [ "Why is the record still marked implementing?", "A live page can describe an earlier rollout without a completion update. The tracker preserves that source wording and the date checked instead of assuming completion." ] ], "id": "college-station-isd", "name": "College Station ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 4, 4, 4, 3 ], "summary": "College Station’s legislative implementation page says the district declined public purchasing, accepted private donations for all 19 schools in fall 2025 and distributed posters for classroom placement. It describes continuing placement rather than certifying every room complete.", "reason": "A concrete 19-school donation/distribution record supports a focused local tracker while making completion limits explicit.", "caseIds": [], "total": 15, "rank": 6 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "galveston-petition", "galveston-board", "tx-lrl" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "galveston-isd", "name": "Galveston ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 3, 4, 5, 5 ], "reason": "Strong litigation demand, but a reported October 2026 order was not obtained. Hold until operative order and implementation response are verified.", "total": 17, "rank": 7 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion", "stinson-argument" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "fayetteville", "name": "Fayetteville School District No. 1", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 4, 2, 4, 4 ], "reason": "Lead case defendant; dedicated case page answers current legal scope. Hold district page until distinct local records add value.", "total": 14, "rank": 8 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "roake-opinion", "roake-petition" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "east-baton-rouge", "name": "East Baton Rouge Parish School Board", "state": "louisiana", "score": [ 3, 2, 5, 4 ], "reason": "Roake board party; held pending current approved design, donations and classroom inventory.", "total": 14, "rank": 9 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "katy" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "katy-isd", "name": "Katy ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 2, 3, 5, 3 ], "reason": "Official donation-report lead; full document download blocked. No totals or current installed count inferred.", "total": 13, "rank": 10 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "nathan-opinion", "nathan-docket" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "alamo-heights-isd", "name": "Alamo Heights ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 3, 2, 4, 4 ], "reason": "Named appellate litigant; held pending district-specific implementation notice and board record beyond case caption.", "total": 13, "rank": 11 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "nathan-opinion" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "plano-isd", "name": "Plano ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 3, 2, 5, 3 ], "reason": "Nathan defendant with substantial local audience; local rollout evidence not deep enough for standalone page.", "total": 13, "rank": 12 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "roake-opinion", "roake-petition" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "st-tammany", "name": "St. Tammany Parish School Board", "state": "louisiana", "score": [ 3, 2, 4, 4 ], "reason": "Roake board party; no independently verified implementation vote/design in this audit.", "total": 13, "rank": 13 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "bentonville", "name": "Bentonville School District No. 6", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 3, 2, 4, 3 ], "reason": "Named permanent-injunction defendant; no separate local implementation or donation record verified.", "total": 12, "rank": 14 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "springdale", "name": "Springdale School District No. 50", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 3, 2, 4, 3 ], "reason": "Named defendant; court coverage retained in state/case table, local page held for distinct evidence.", "total": 12, "rank": 15 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "brazosport" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "brazosport-isd", "name": "Brazosport ISD", "state": "texas", "score": [ 3, 3, 3, 2 ], "reason": "Official August 11, 2025 receipt for 17 campuses; held pending current placement and board records.", "total": 11, "rank": 16 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Blocked for named defendants", "sources": [ "stinson-opinion" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "siloam-springs", "name": "Siloam Springs School District No. 21", "state": "arkansas", "score": [ 3, 2, 3, 3 ], "reason": "Named defendant; current legal scope verified, independent local public-record depth limited.", "total": 11, "rank": 17 }, { "published": false, "verified": "2026-10-09", "boardAction": "A dated local implementation vote was not located in this audit", "vote": "Not located", "donation": "Not independently established in reviewed local records", "design": "Local design not independently verified", "campuses": "No current campus-by-campus inventory located", "guidance": "Separate local legal guidance not located", "grievances": "No local grievance disposition located; absence of a record is not absence of a complaint", "status": "Implementation not located", "sources": [ "roake-opinion", "roake-petition" ], "timeline": [], "answers": [], "id": "vernon-parish", "name": "Vernon Parish School Board", "state": "louisiana", "score": [ 3, 2, 3, 3 ], "reason": "Roake board party; case sources available, district-specific implementation depth insufficient.", "total": 11, "rank": 18 } ], "notes": [ "Scope: eight audited states; not a 50-state inventory.", "Public records baseline is October 9, 2026; future deadlines are labeled." ], "rankingMethod": "Editorial opportunity assessment, not search-volume measurement: four 0–5 dimensions (primary-record depth, unique local facts/parent usefulness, likely audience/search relevance, recurring update potential). Publication gates require a usable current scope and differentiated evidence; held candidates may have higher raw scores. Board votes, donations, counsel guidance, grievances and lawsuits inform record depth. Google checks covered national intent and Eanes district intent; no district-by-district ranking-position or traffic claims.", "serp": { "date": "2026-10-09", "queries": [ "Ten Commandments in public schools laws by state", "Eanes ISD Ten Commandments classrooms" ], "finding": "National results emphasize news, maps and constitutional debate; district results prioritize the district FAQ and general news. Chosen route preserves exact display-law intent and separates released-time instruction. No measured volume/difficulty estimate.", "route": "/education/ten-commandments-public-schools.html" } }