糖心Vlog

On March 5, 2025, the 糖心Vlogand its allies filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the First Amendment does not prohibit states from offering limited, categorical religious exemptions or from distinguishing between religious and nonreligious entities and activities in assessing the applicability of exemptions.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas 鈥� A group of sixteen multi-faith and nonreligious Texas families filed suit in federal court today to block a new state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to display a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are represented by the 糖心Vlog of Texas, the 糖心Vlog, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. In their complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Hindu, or nonreligious, assert that Senate Bill 10 violates the First Amendment鈥檚 protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise. The plaintiffs also plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prevent the defendants from implementing the law pending the resolution of the litigation. 鈥淎s a rabbi and public-school parent, I am deeply concerned that S.B. 10 will impose another faith鈥檚 scripture on students for nearly every hour of the school day,鈥� said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her). 鈥淲hile our Jewish faith treats the Ten Commandments as sacred, the version mandated under this law does not match the text followed by our family, and the school displays will conflict with the religious beliefs and values we seek to instill in our child.鈥� 鈥淧osting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,鈥� said plaintiff Pastor Griff Martin (he/him). 鈥淪.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family鈥檚 Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion鈥攕o that our faith may remain free and authentic. My children鈥檚 faith should be shaped by family and our religious community, not by a Christian nationalist movement that confuses God with power.鈥� 鈥淪.B. 10 imposes a specific, rules-based set of norms that is at odds with my Hindu faith,鈥� said plaintiff Arvind Chandrakantan (he/him). 鈥淒isplaying the Ten Commandments in my children's classrooms sends the message that certain aspects of Hinduism 鈥� like believing in multiple paths to God (pluralism) or venerating murthis (statues) as the living, breathing, physical representations of God 鈥� are wrong. Public schools 鈥� and the State of Texas 鈥� have no place pushing their preferred religious beliefs on my children, let alone denigrating my faith, which is about as un-American and un-Texan as one can be." Plaintiff Allison Fitzpatrick (she/her) added: 鈥淲e are nonreligious and don鈥檛 follow the explicitly religious commandments, such as 鈥榬emember the Sabbath.鈥� Every day that the posters are up in classrooms will signal to my children that they are violating school rules.鈥� Signed into law last month, S.B. 10 requires the scriptural postings to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a 鈥渃onspicuous place鈥� in each classroom. The commandments must be printed 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.鈥� The law also mandates that a specific version of the commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. 鈥淪.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver (she/her), senior counsel for the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淪tates may not require children to attend school and then impose scripture on them everywhere they go.鈥� 鈥淚n a state as diverse as Texas, families from both religious and nonreligious backgrounds are coming together to challenge this unconstitutional law. Their message is clear: Our public schools are not Sunday schools,鈥� said Adriana Pi帽on (she/her), legal director of the 糖心Vlogof Texas. 鈥淧oliticians do not get to dictate how or whether students should practice religion. We鈥檙e bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all students, regardless of their faith or nonreligious beliefs, feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools.鈥� 鈥淥ur Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of church-state separation means that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide when and how public-school children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭his law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and over nonreligion 鈥� in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We鈥檙e proud to defend the religious freedom of Texas schoolchildren and their families.鈥� 鈥淥ne need only read the First Commandment (鈥楾hou shalt have no other gods before me鈥�) to see how this state-imposed injunction is the antithesis of the First Amendment and its protections of religious liberty,鈥� says Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭he state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship or whether to worship any gods at all.鈥� 鈥淭he right to be free from government establishment of religion enshrined in the First Amendment is a bedrock principle of our republic,鈥� said Jonathan Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department. 鈥淭his law 鈥� in requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom throughout a child鈥檚 entire public school education 鈥� violates both the ban on establishment of religion as well as the protections the First Amendment gives to free exercise of religion.鈥� The Supreme Court has long prohibited displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Forty-five years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Court struck down a similar Kentucky law. More recently, in Roake v. Brumley, a federal district court reached the same conclusion regarding a similar law in Louisiana. That ruling was unanimously affirmed last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And just last week, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court held that a public school 鈥渂urdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.鈥� A copy of the complaint can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/07/Texas-Ten-Commandments-Complaint-FILED.pdf

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Mahmoud v. Taylor that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow religious opt-outs from any lessons that parents believe will interfere with the religious development of their children, including LGBTQ-themed materials. The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools鈥� ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools鈥� ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections. The case involves a district policy that prohibits all opt-outs from the district鈥檚 English Language Arts curriculum. The curriculum, which includes some LGBTQ-themed books and resources, is secular, age-appropriate, and designed to be inclusive. 鈥淲hile fundamentally important, religious freedom shouldn鈥檛 force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don鈥檛 align with their families鈥� religious views,鈥� said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淭his decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a drastic break from decades of precedent,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. 鈥淔or the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district鈥檚 legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption 鈥� ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.鈥� Deborah Jeon, legal director for the 糖心Vlogof Maryland, added: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is deeply disappointing. Our public-education system should be one that embraces differences as an opportunity to foster understanding and bring people together.鈥� In April, the 糖心Vlog and the 糖心Vlogof Maryland filed an amicus brief arguing that MCPS鈥檚 policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board and should be analyzed under a lower standard of legal review, which the policy easily satisfies. This case is part of the ACLU鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

The 糖心Vloghas served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.