Education · Religious liberty · Public records

Arkansas Ten Commandments School Law: Requirements & Current Status

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.

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

National tracker State database Court database 2026 report

Current status

Implementation: Blocked for named defendants
Court status: Judgment on appeal
Order scope: March 16 permanent injunction binds Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Conway and Lakeside defendant districts. Do not describe it as an automatic statewide injunction.
Last verified: 2026-10-09

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

Exact law and implementation rules

Read the enacted statutory text: Act 573 / Ark. Code §1-4-133

Law / bill: Act 573 / Ark. Code §1-4-133
Law status: Enacted
Enacted: 2025-04-14
Effective: 2025-08-05
Display deadline / start: 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
Classrooms / common areas: Classrooms and libraries; additional public buildings/facilities under statute
Display rule: Required, subject to funding and court orders
Size and text: At least 16 × 20 inches; prescribed wording legible from anywhere in room
Historical context: Statute calls it a historical representation; no Louisiana-style accompanying history paragraph
Donation condition: Initial copies donated or purchased solely from voluntary contributions under subsection (b)
Public funding: Subsection (c) expressly permits public funds or a private donation to replace a nonconforming copy; surplus copies must be donated onward
Defense / indemnity: No special defense/indemnity provision identified in the cited display section
State guidance: Source not located in this audit
Implementation: Blocked for named defendants
Court status: Judgment on appeal
Injunction scope: March 16 permanent injunction binds Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Conway and Lakeside defendant districts. Do not describe it as an automatic statewide injunction.
Federal circuit: Eighth
Latest filing / verified event: Latest verified public event: oral argument 2026-09-22 in 26-1722; latest docket filing not independently established
Supreme Court: No Supreme Court petition located for Stinson
Last verified: 2026-10-09

Operative statutory excerpt

With public funds; or … By accepting a private donation.

Excerpt; the linked complete law controls exceptions and related provisions.

Implementation and court timeline

2025-04-14Act 573 approved.
2025-08-04Preliminary injunction entered for the original four districts.
2025-08-05Act effective statewide; other districts were not automatically bound.
2025-09-10Conway added to preliminary injunction.
2025-11-10Lakeside added to preliminary injunction.
2026-03-16Permanent injunction entered for six defendants.
2026-09-22Eighth Circuit heard appeal 26-1722.

Local implementation records

District	Documented status	Evidence / publication decision
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. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188 · Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments · Eighth Circuit — opinions for 26-1722 · Arkansas Act 573 — approved text
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. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188 · Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments · Eighth Circuit — opinions for 26-1722 · Arkansas Act 573 — approved text
Fayetteville School District No. 1	Blocked for named defendants	Lead case defendant; dedicated case page answers current legal scope. Hold district page until distinct local records add value. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188 · Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments
Bentonville School District No. 6	Blocked for named defendants	Named permanent-injunction defendant; no separate local implementation or donation record verified. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188
Springdale School District No. 50	Blocked for named defendants	Named defendant; court coverage retained in state/case table, local page held for distinct evidence. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188
Siloam Springs School District No. 21	Blocked for named defendants	Named defendant; current legal scope verified, independent local public-record depth limited. Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 188

Related litigation

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

Questions parents and residents ask

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.

Official documents and provenance

Arkansas Act 573 — approved text2025-04-14 · Checked 2026-10-09. Page 3 visually checked: voluntary funding rule in (b), public-fund replacement exception in (c).
Stinson — permanent-injunction opinion, Document 1882026-03-16 · Checked 2026-10-09. Court-stamped primary document hosted by plaintiffs’ counsel (ACLU), not a counsel press summary. Pages 1–3, 11–14 and 25–26.
Eighth Circuit — September 2026 oral arguments2026-09-22 · Checked 2026-10-09. No. 26-1722 argued September 22, 2026; argument is not a decision.
Eighth Circuit — opinions for 26-17222026-10-09 · Checked 2026-10-09. Official case-opinion search returned “No Opinion Found” at baseline.

How this state record was verified

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.

Update log

October 9, 2026: Initial source-checked publication. Enacted text, timing, funding and litigation fields separated.

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