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.
By WorthFighting Research · Published and verified October 9, 2026 · Selected records, not a nationwide compliance census
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Louisiana law and implementation tracker
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.
The en banc disposition did not decide that merits question. It vacated preliminary relief as premature.
Brumley and other state defendants are the petitioners seeking review. The lower-court litigation is commonly referred to as Roake v. Brumley.
No. Placement, context, accompanying materials and use can differ. The opinion specifically identifies those facts as important to constitutional review.
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.
October 9, 2026: Initial source-checked publication. Procedural posture, operative scope and next known deadline checked.
This is a dated research snapshot. Future updates require a new source check; no automatic monitoring is claimed.