Skip to content
Education · Religious liberty · Public records

Texas Ten Commandments School Law: Requirements & Current Status

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.

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

National trackerState databaseCourt database2026 report

Current status

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.

Implementation
Required and in effect
Court status
Certiorari petition pending
Order scope
Nathan preliminary injunction vacated April 21, 2026. Do not extend this disposition to every separate lawsuit or later order.
Last verified
2026-10-09
Texas SB 10 — enrolled law · Texas Legislature — SB 10 history · Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ · Texas AG — SB 10 legal advisory · Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion · Supreme Court docket 26-257 · Roth v. Texas — original petition

Exact law and implementation rules

Read the enacted statutory text: SB 10 / Education Code §1.0041

Law / bill
SB 10 / Education Code §1.0041
Law status
Enacted
Enacted
2025-06-20
Effective
2025-09-01
Display deadline / start
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
Classrooms / common areas
Each classroom, conspicuous placement
Display rule
Required
Size and text
At least 16 inches wide × 20 inches tall; prescribed text only, legible from anywhere in the classroom
Historical context
No additional content on the required poster
Donation condition
Schools lacking required posters must accept and display compliant privately donated copies
Public funding
District purchases allowed but not required; public funds are not categorically prohibited
Defense / indemnity
AG shall defend compliance claims; state liable for representation expenses, costs, judgments or settlements (§1.0041(g))
State guidance
TEA June 18, 2026 FAQ; October 2025 AG advisory
Implementation
Required and in effect
Court status
Certiorari petition pending
Injunction scope
Nathan preliminary injunction vacated April 21, 2026. Do not extend this disposition to every separate lawsuit or later order.
Federal circuit
Fifth
Latest filing / verified event
2026-09-28 — amici brief listed in Supreme Court docket 26-257
Supreme Court
26-257 pending; response due 2026-10-28; no grant located
Last verified
2026-10-09
Operative statutory excerpt
may, but is not required to, purchase posters or copies that meet the requirements of Subsection (b) using district funds.

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

Implementation and court timeline

  1. 2025-06-20Governor signed SB 10; official legislative history.
  2. 2025-09-01Law effective, applying to the 2025–26 school year.
  3. 2026-04-21En banc Fifth Circuit vacated Nathan injunction and rendered dismissal.
  4. 2026-07-30Roth filed a separate state-law challenge; current operative orders not verified in this audit.
  5. 2026-08-17Nathan / Cribbs Ringer joint certiorari petition filed.
  6. 2026-10-28Next known response deadline in docket 26-257; future as of baseline.

Local implementation records

DistrictDocumented statusEvidence / publication decision
Cypress-Fairbanks ISDImplementingCFISD’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.
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD — August 3 family notice · Texas SB 10 — enrolled law · Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ · Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion · Supreme Court docket 26-257 · Roth v. Texas — original petition
Eanes ISDImplementingEanes 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.
Eanes ISD — legislative updates · Eanes ISD — Ten Commandments family FAQ · Texas SB 10 — enrolled law · Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ · Supreme Court docket 26-257
College Station ISDImplementingCollege 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.
College Station ISD — 89th session implementation · Texas SB 10 — enrolled law · Texas Education Agency — legislative FAQ
Galveston ISDImplementation not locatedStrong litigation demand, but a reported October 2026 order was not obtained. Hold until operative order and implementation response are verified.
Texas v. Galveston ISD — AG petition · Galveston ISD — September 23 board agenda · Texas Legislative Reference Library — related case register
Katy ISDImplementation not locatedOfficial donation-report lead; full document download blocked. No totals or current installed count inferred.
Katy ISD — March 2026 donation report
Alamo Heights ISDImplementation not locatedNamed appellate litigant; held pending district-specific implementation notice and board record beyond case caption.
Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion · Supreme Court docket 26-257
Plano ISDImplementation not locatedNathan defendant with substantial local audience; local rollout evidence not deep enough for standalone page.
Nathan — Fifth Circuit en banc opinion
Brazosport ISDImplementation not locatedOfficial August 11, 2025 receipt for 17 campuses; held pending current placement and board records.
Brazosport ISD — donated posters notice

Related litigation

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

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

Questions parents and residents ask

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.

Official documents and provenance

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.