老熟女午夜福利

NEW ORLEANS 鈥� The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in two cases challenging state laws in Louisiana and Texas that require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The cases, Rev. Roake v. Brumley and , raise fundamental questions about religious freedom and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment.

These arguments come nearly a year after a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana鈥檚 is 鈥減lainly unconstitutional,鈥� finding it directly contradicted long-standing Supreme Court precedent. That decision was vacated when the full court agreed to rehear the case en banc. Federal courts in Texas have likewise issued multiple preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of , concluding that the law violates students鈥� First Amendment rights by forcing government-endorsed religious scripture on public-school children.

The plaintiffs in both states are multifaith and nonreligious families who simply want their constitutional right to decide their children鈥檚 religious education respected by the government. They want their children鈥檚 public schools to remain welcoming and inclusive for their families and students of all backgrounds.

鈥淚 send my children to public school to learn math, English, science, art, and so much more鈥攂ut not to be evangelized by the state into its chosen religion,鈥� said Rev. Jeff Sims (he/him) from Louisiana. 鈥淭hese religious displays send a message to my children and other students that people of some religious denominations are superior to others. This is religious favoritism and it鈥檚 not only dangerous, but runs counter to my Presbyterian values of inclusion and equality.鈥�

鈥淣o one faith should be canonized as more holy than others. Yet Texas legislators are imposing the Ten Commandments on public-school children,鈥� said Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her) from Texas. 鈥淭hough they are a sacred text to me and many others, the Ten Commandments has no place on the walls of public-school classrooms. Children's religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools."

The Louisiana plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are represented by the 老熟女午夜福利, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. The Texas plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are represented by the 老熟女午夜福利, ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel.

鈥淧ublic schools are meant to educate, not evangelize,鈥� said Daniel Mach (he/him), director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淲hen the government mandates the display of a specific religious text in every classroom, it crosses a constitutional line by pressuring students and families to conform to the state鈥檚 preferred religious doctrine. The First Amendment protects the freedom of every family to decide matters of faith for themselves, and today鈥檚 arguments underscore why we must uphold that principle in our public schools.鈥�

鈥淲e are proud to be in front of the 5th Circuit representing Texas families who are challenging forced Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms,鈥� said Sarah Corning (she/her), attorney at the ACLU of Texas. 鈥淪.B. 10 is a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights and sends students the message that they only belong if they follow the government鈥檚 chosen religion. Texas schools are not Sunday schools, and the Constitution protects Texans鈥� right to decide how or whether they practice their faith. Texas families want and deserve better from our public schools.鈥�

鈥淧ublic schools exist to educate, not indoctrinate,鈥� said Alanah Odoms (she/her), executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. 鈥淭hey must remain spaces where all children are safe, free, and respected鈥攔egardless of their family鈥檚 beliefs. Religion is a personal choice, made by families, not something imposed by politicians through our public schools.鈥�

鈥淲e appreciate the Court鈥檚 time and its thoughtful engagement during today鈥檚 argument. This case centers on a fundamental constitutional principle: Families鈥攏ot the government鈥攎ust retain the right to decide whether and how their children engage with religion,鈥� said Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 global Litigation Department. 鈥淭he laws at issue disrupt that longstanding protection, and we look to the court to safeguard these core First Amendment guarantees.鈥�

鈥淭he imposition of a particular religious teaching infringes the rights of students with minority beliefs and no belief,鈥� said Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭he Louisiana and Texas state governments cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over those who do not adhere to the dominant religion.鈥�

鈥淓very federal court that鈥檚 ruled in these cases so far has said the same thing: Requiring public schools to display a state-mandated version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom is unconstitutional. We urge the Fifth Circuit to affirm those rulings,鈥� said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淔amilies 鈥� not politicians or public-school officials 鈥� get to decide how, if and when their children engage with religion.鈥�