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.
By WorthFighting Research · Published and verified October 9, 2026 · Selected records, not a nationwide compliance census
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Six named defendant districts, not an automatic injunction against every Arkansas school district or public building
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.
Arkansas law and implementation tracker
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.
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.
The operative relief reviewed here binds six named defendant districts. It should not be restated as automatically binding every Arkansas school.
Filing or arguing an appeal does not by itself establish a stay. No superseding stay was located in the reviewed public records.
No opinion was returned by its official case search at the October 9 baseline. Oral argument occurred September 22.
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.