Judge blocks Texas 10 Commandments School Display Law

A federal judge has blocked key elements of a landmark law in Texas that would have required public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, a move that could carry meaningful implications for similar efforts in Alabama.

In Texas, a law passed earlier this year—Senate Bill 10 (SB 10)—mandated that public K-12 classrooms display the full text of the Ten Commandments in a “clearly visible place.” On Nov. 18, U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia issued a preliminary injunction preventing several school districts from enforcing that law, finding that it likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In his decision, Judge Garcia wrote:

“Because displaying the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public-school classroom as set forth in SB 10 violates the Establishment Clause…Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim.”

The ruling affects multiple districts, including but not limited to the Arlington Independent School District, McKinney Independent School District and Rockwall Independent School District. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has appealed the decision and continues to press enforcement of the law in other districts.

Supporters of the law argued the Commandments represent moral and legal heritage. For instance, Texas Republican Rep. Candy Noble is quoted as saying:

“Nothing is more deep-rooted in the fabric of our American tradition of education than the Ten Commandments. The way we treat others as a society comes from the principles found in the Ten Commandments.”

Opponents contend the mandated display crosses the line into State-endorsed religious messaging. In the ruling, the judge referenced a precedent case—Stone v. Graham (1980)—that struck down a Kentucky law requiring a Ten Commandments poster in each classroom. “The present case is factually indistinguishable from Stone,” he wrote.

Charles Foster Johnson, founding Executive Director of Pastors for Texas Children, said he was not surprised by the rulings, arguing that the mandate “violates our United States Constitution and God’s moral law.” He added that lawmakers “knew from the get-go” the statute would be challenged, calling the bill’s sponsors “extremists” seeking “political chaos—not moral order.” Johnson said teachers already model integrity in the classroom and “don’t need loud and loony right-wing legislators telling them how to act,” adding that lawmakers “would do well simply to keep” the Ten Commandments rather than mandate them.

In Alabama’s 2025 legislative session, State Rep. Mark Gidley (R-Hokes Bluff) sponsored House Bill 178 (HB 178), a bill that would require public K-12 schools to display the Ten Commandments in entryways, common areas and U.S. history classrooms. Gidley said of the bill:

“This is about returning foundational principles to schools to be taught.”

The bill passed the Alabama House by 88-11 after somewhat contentious debate. It specifies that displays must read that the commandments are “a key part of the Judeo-Christian religious and moral tradition that shaped Western Civilization and ultimately the founding of the United States.” The legislation leaves compliance dependent on donation of the displays and does not impose penalties on boards that decline to participate.

HB 178 died in the Senate Committee on Education Policy.

Rep. Gidley has told ALPolitics.com and others that he intends to prefile the bill again in the next session, but it had not been posted as being filed on ALISON as of this writing.

Given the Texas court ruling, Alabama’s effort faces a notable headwind. The Texas decision highlights a federal court’s willingness to block laws that treat religious scripture as State policy in a public-school setting. That precedent can raise caution among Alabama lawmakers and could be used by legal opponents in Alabama to argue that the Ten Commandments mandate forms an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

In short: the Alabama bill may still move, but its prospects of surviving a constitutional challenge now look tougher—pending, of course, the outcome of Texas AG Paxton’s appeal.

For Alabama advocates, the Texas outcome signals that even if legislation is passed, implementation may trigger litigation and require costly court defence. For opponents, the ruling in Texas offers a strong template for legal arguments and possible federal outcomes. Either way, the Texas case is likely to influence strategy and debate in Alabama as the issue advances into the Senate and possibly beyond.