Skip to content
Education · Religious liberty · Public records

Ten Commandments in Public Schools: State Laws, Court Cases & District Tracker

What the law requires. What the courts ordered. What local records establish.

By WorthFighting Research · Published and verified October 9, 2026 · Selected records, not a nationwide compliance census

National trackerState databaseCourt database2026 report

A dated national snapshot

The same headline can describe very different legal situations. This audit verifies four enacted requirement laws, three authorization provisions and one pending bill across eight selected states. It separately tracks five court cases and six published district profiles.

8states audited
5case records
3verified pending Supreme Court petitions
6district trackers
Scope first: Alabama’s law is effective, but its display duty begins January 1, 2027. Stinson’s permanent injunction covers six Arkansas defendants. A pending Supreme Court petition is not a grant.

Find a state

8 of 8 records shownLink to these filters
StateLaw / display ruleImplementationCourt / timing
TexasSB 10 / Education Code §1.0041
EnactedRequired		Required and in effectCertiorari petition pending
2025–26 school year; donation/purchase mechanics apply
LouisianaHB 71 / Act 676 / R.S. 17:2124
EnactedRequired		Required and in effectCertiorari petition pending
2025-01-01 statutory display deadline
ArkansasAct 573 / Ark. Code §1-4-133
EnactedRequired, subject to funding and court orders		Blocked for named defendantsJudgment on appeal
Duty operates when subsection (b) funds/displays are available
AlabamaSB 99 / Act 2026-428
EnactedRequired; future display start		Required; future implementation dateNo located challenge
Display duty begins 2027-01-01, subject to available donations determined by State Superintendent
TennesseeHB 47 / Public Chapter 924 (2026)
EnactedAuthorized, not required		Authorized, not requiredNo located challenge
No mandatory display deadline in the enacted authorization described by official history
North DakotaN.D.C.C. §15.1-09-33(35); §15.1-09-33.5
EnactedAuthorized, not required		Authorized, not requiredNo located challenge
No mandatory display deadline
South DakotaS.D.C.L. §13-24-17.1 (2000 ch. 79)
EnactedAuthorized, not required		Authorized, not requiredNo located challenge
No mandatory display deadline
OhioSB 34, 136th General Assembly
ProposedProposed		UnknownNo located challenge
Senate text says July 1, 2026, but bill remains unenacted; that text creates no current deadline

Current court records

Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD

Certiorari petition pending

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.

Next: 2026-10-28 — response due after extension

Docket, parties, relief and scope
Dockets
W.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00756; Fifth Circuit 25-50695; Supreme Court 26-257
Court
Fifth Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court
State / challenged law
Texas / 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
Filed
2025-07-02 (Nathan; petition’s procedural history)
Current posture
April 21 en banc merits judgment reversed district judgment, vacated preliminary injunction and rendered dismissal; petition seeks review
Preliminary relief
Granted August 20, 2025; vacated April 21, 2026
Permanent relief
No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record
Appeal
En banc disposition April 21; related Cribbs Ringer judgment May 29 included in joint petition
Supreme Court
Petition filed August 17; docketed August 27, 2026; no certiorari grant recorded
Latest filing / event
2026-09-28 — Professors Mark Storslee et al. amicus brief listed on Supreme Court docket
Next known deadline
2026-10-28 — response due after extension
Legal / geographic 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.
Last verified
2026-10-09

Texas state tracker

Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion · Nathan / Cribbs Ringer — corrected certiorari petition · Supreme Court docket 26-257 · Texas SB 10 — enrolled law · Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ

Roake v. Brumley

Certiorari petition pending

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.

Next: 2026-10-19 — response due

Docket, parties, relief and scope
Dockets
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
State / challenged law
Louisiana / 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
Filed
Original filing date not independently established in this baseline
Current posture
February 20 en banc court vacated preliminary injunction as premature; constitutional merits not decided by that disposition
Preliminary relief
2024 preliminary injunction vacated February 20, 2026
Permanent relief
No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record
Appeal
En banc ruling February 20, 2026
Supreme Court
Conditional petition filed May 21, 2026 by Brumley and others; no grant recorded
Latest filing / event
2026-09-18 — order extending time to respond
Next known deadline
2026-10-19 — response due
Legal / geographic 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.
Last verified
2026-10-09

Louisiana state tracker

Roake — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion · Brumley v. Roake — conditional petition and appendix · Supreme Court docket 25-1360 · Louisiana R.S. 17:2124 — Act 676 · Louisiana AG — HB 71 guidance and display models

Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1

Judgment on appeal

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.

Next: No next deadline located

Docket, parties, relief and scope
Dockets
W.D. Ark. 5:25-cv-05127; Eighth Circuit 26-1722
Court
Western District of Arkansas / Eighth Circuit
State / challenged law
Arkansas / 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
Filed
Original filing date not independently established in this baseline
Current posture
Plaintiffs won summary judgment March 16, 2026; six defendants permanently enjoined; appeal argued September 22
Preliminary relief
Original four districts August 4, 2025; Conway September 10; Lakeside November 10
Permanent relief
Granted March 16, 2026 against six defendant districts
Appeal
26-1722 pending; oral argument September 22, 2026; official search returned no opinion at baseline
Supreme Court
No petition located
Latest filing / event
Latest verified public event is September 22 argument; a complete current appellate filing ledger was not obtained
Next known deadline
No next deadline located
Legal / geographic scope
Six named defendant districts, not an automatic injunction against every Arkansas school district or public building
Last verified
2026-10-09

Arkansas state tracker

Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188 · Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments · Eighth Circuit — opinions for 26-1722 · Arkansas Act 573 — approved text

Dier v. Landry

Certiorari petition pending

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.

Next: 2026-10-28 — response due

Docket, parties, relief and scope
Dockets
E.D. La. 2:24-cv-02306; Fifth Circuit 26-30243; Supreme Court 26-256
Court
Fifth Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court
State / challenged law
Louisiana / Louisiana HB 71
Parties
Teacher Christopher Dier v. governor and Louisiana education/AG officials
Claims
Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech
Filed
2024-09-23
Current posture
April 22 dismissal; July 10 summary affirmance; certiorari requested
Preliminary relief
Request denied as moot with dismissal April 22, 2026
Permanent relief
No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record
Appeal
Summary affirmance July 10, 2026
Supreme Court
Petition filed August 25; docketed August 27; pending
Latest filing / event
2026-09-18 — response extension order
Next known deadline
2026-10-28 — response due
Legal / geographic scope
Separate teacher challenge; do not merge docket or deadline with Brumley v. Roake
Last verified
2026-10-09

Louisiana state tracker

Supreme Court docket 26-256 · Dier — court orders and complaint appendix

Roth v. State of Texas

Unknown/not located

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.

Next: No next deadline located

Docket, parties, relief and scope
Dockets
Harris County 215th District Court, 2026-51730
Court
Texas state district court
State / challenged law
Texas / 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
Filed
2026-07-30
Current posture
Complaint filed is verified; current operative injunction ruling not independently verified
Preliminary relief
Requested; later operative order not located in this audit
Permanent relief
No permanent injunction identified in reviewed record
Appeal
Not applicable / not located
Supreme Court
No petition located
Latest filing / event
Latest primary filing reviewed: original petition, 2026-07-30; not represented as latest docket entry
Next known deadline
No next deadline located
Legal / geographic scope
Separate state-law case. Petition allegations about displays are not court findings or a statewide noncompliance assessment.
Last verified
2026-10-09

Texas state tracker

Roth v. Texas — original petition · Texas Legislative Reference Library — related case register

Districts with distinct public records

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD

Implementing

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.

Eanes ISD

Implementing

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.

Livingston Parish School Board

Implementing

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.

Conway School District No. 1

Blocked for named defendants

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.

Lakeside School District No. 9

Blocked for named defendants

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.

College Station ISD

Implementing

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.

Law and litigation timeline

  1. 2024-06-19Louisiana Act 676 effective; display deadline January 1, 2025.
  2. 2025-04-14Arkansas Act 573 approved; effective August 5.
  3. 2025-06-20Texas SB 10 signed; effective September 1.
  4. 2026-02-20Roake preliminary relief vacated on ripeness grounds.
  5. 2026-03-16Stinson permanent injunction entered for six districts.
  6. 2026-04-13Alabama SB 99 enacted.
  7. 2026-04-21Nathan en banc merits decision.
  8. 2026-07-01Tennessee permissive law effective.
  9. 2026-09-22Stinson appeal argued in Eighth Circuit.
  10. 2026-10-01Alabama act effective.
  11. 2026-10-19 / 2026-10-28Future Supreme Court response deadlines; see each docket.
  12. 2027-01-01Alabama display duty begins, subject to donations.

How to read the legal status

Preliminary or permanent?

A preliminary injunction is interim relief. A permanent injunction follows a final adjudication, but can still be reviewed or stayed. Read the operative order, its date and the named defendants.

Facial or as applied?

A facial challenge attacks a law itself. An as-applied challenge addresses the law’s operation in a particular situation. Placement, design, accompanying material and use can affect that record.

Which places are bound?

A district-specific order is not automatically statewide. Circuit precedent and a Supreme Court ruling also have different reach. Stinson names six Arkansas defendant districts; Nathan is a Fifth Circuit judgment.

Has the Supreme Court agreed?

A certiorari petition asks for review. Docketing, a response request, an extension or an amicus brief does not establish a grant. The three petitions verified here remain pending at the baseline.

Direct answers

Which states require classroom displays?

This audit verifies enacted requirements in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama. Their timing, classroom coverage, funding conditions and court restrictions differ. Alabama’s display duty starts January 1, 2027. This is not a count from all 50 states.

Which audited states only authorize displays?

Tennessee, North Dakota and South Dakota have verified authorization provisions in this snapshot. Permission does not prove a local school has installed anything.

Are all Arkansas schools blocked?

The reviewed Stinson permanent injunction binds six named defendant districts. Its scope must not be expanded automatically to every district.

Has the Supreme Court accepted a Ten Commandments school case?

The three verified petitions—26-257, 25-1360 and 26-256—are pending at this October 9 baseline. No grant is recorded in their reviewed dockets.

Can I use a donation count as a compliance count?

No. An offer, receipt, distribution, board directive and confirmed installation are separate events. The district pages explain exactly which event a source establishes.

Status definitions

Law status
Enacted
Approved as law. Effective dates and display deadlines are separate fields.
Proposed
A bill, not an operative legal duty.
Vetoed
Governor rejected; record any override separately.
Failed/expired
Did not become law in the relevant legislative cycle.
Repealed
An enacted provision was later removed.
Unknown/not located
No adequate authority located to assign another law status.
Implementation status
Required and in effect
Legal display duty is operative, subject to funding conditions and applicable orders; not proof every classroom complies.
Required; future effective date
Law enacted but effective date has not arrived.
Required; future implementation date
Law is effective but display duty begins later, as in Alabama.
Authorized, not required
Local permission without a statewide duty to install.
Implementing
Official record describes a rollout, direction, distribution or installation in progress.
Confirmed implemented
A source establishes completion for an expressly defined location and date; not inferred from a donation.
Partially implemented
Source verifies some completed locations and identifies unfinished scope.
Implementation not located
No usable implementation record in the audit.
Blocked for named defendants
An order prohibits the specified defendants from implementation.
Statewide enforcement blocked
Use only if authoritative order establishes that scope.
Unknown
Available evidence does not resolve current implementation.
Court status
No located challenge
No challenge located within audited sources, not a guarantee none exists.
Complaint filed
Filing verified; allegations are not findings.
Preliminary injunction granted
Interim relief pending further adjudication; specify parties and date.
Preliminary injunction denied
Interim relief refused; not necessarily final merits judgment.
Permanent injunction granted
Final injunctive relief entered; may be appealed or stayed.
Judgment on appeal
Final judgment is under appellate review.
Appeal pending
Appellate proceeding unresolved in reviewed records.
Certiorari petition pending
Supreme Court review requested, not granted.
Certiorari granted
Supreme Court has agreed to review identified questions.
Certiorari denied
Review refused; not a Supreme Court endorsement of reasoning below.
Case dismissed
Claims disposed of; identify grounds and appeal status.
Remanded
Returned to lower court for further proceedings.
Unknown/not located
Current operative ruling not established.

Primary-source document library

Methodology and limits

This is an eight-state public-record audit dated October 9, 2026, not a 50-state census or a nationwide compliance survey. State coverage comprises Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Ohio. District opportunities are a selected set in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas; Alabama district preparation sources were sought but not located at publishable depth.

Source order: enacted statute and current legislative history; operative court opinion/order and official docket; agency guidance; board minutes and district notices; party filings for allegations. News and advocacy were used to locate documents. Court-authored material hosted by counsel and board-authored legal notices are labeled by provenance. A party filing does not establish its factual allegations.

Every record keeps the law, local implementation and legal posture separate. A record’s verification date is when we checked its cited sources, not a new event date. “Not located” never means no guidance, no complaint, noncompliance or a closed case. Statutory deadlines remain distinct from donation receipt, board authorization and installed displays.

The court audit uses public opinions, Supreme Court dockets and the Eighth Circuit argument/opinion index; it is not a complete paid-docket review. Roth’s later operative order, fresh Galveston orders, Alabama’s approved template and current room inventories remain verification gaps. Future deadlines are labeled and no automatic update is implied.

Download the dated records

Download state CSVDownload case CSVDownload district research CSVComplete dated JSON

UTF-8 CSVs retain source URLs, full field values and verification dates. Unknowns are text labels, not zero values. Reuse should preserve source provenance and scope notes.

Update log

October 9, 2026: Initial source-checked publication. Eight states, five case records, six district trackers and 18 ranked opportunities.

This is a dated research snapshot. Future updates require a new source check; no automatic monitoring is claimed.