糖心Vlog

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. 鈥� In a victory for religious freedom and church-state separation, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction today in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, prohibiting the school district defendants from implementing an Arkansas law that requires all public schools to permanently display a government-chosen, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library. In his decision U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks held that Arkansas Act 573, which is due to take effect on Aug. 5, 鈥渋s plainly unconstitutional鈥� under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Ruling that the law would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the child plaintiffs and interfere with their parents鈥� rights to direct their children鈥檚 religious education, Judge Brooks explained: 鈥淪tudents receiving instruction in algebra, physics, engineering, accounting, computer science, woodworking, fashion design, and German will do so in classrooms that prominently display (the King James version of) the Ten Commandments. Every day from kindergarten to twelfth grade, children will be confronted with these Commandments鈥攐r face civil penalties for missing school.鈥� Today鈥檚 decision also sounds the alarm against growing state efforts to 鈥渆xperiment鈥� with government establishments of religion: 鈥淲hy would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law? Most likely because the State is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms.鈥� 鈥淎ct 573 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we鈥檙e pleased that the court ruled in our favor,鈥� said Samantha Stinson, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Jonathan Stinson. 鈥淭he version of the Ten Commandments mandated by Act 573 conflicts with our family鈥檚 Jewish tenets and practice, and our belief that our children should receive their religious instruction at home and within our faith community, not from government officials.鈥� 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision ensures that our clients鈥� classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state鈥檚 preferred religious beliefs.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is a victory for Arkansas families and for the First Amendment,鈥� said John Williams, legal director for the 糖心Vlogof Arkansas. 鈥淭he court saw through this attempt to impose religious doctrine in public schools and upheld every student鈥檚 right to learn free from government-imposed faith. We鈥檙e proud to stand with our clients 鈥� families of many different backgrounds 鈥� who simply want their kids to get an education.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision will ensure that Arkansas families 鈥� not politicians or public-school officials 鈥� get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淚t sends a strong message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.鈥� 鈥淲e are delighted that reason and our secular Constitution have prevailed, and that children will be spared this unconstitutional proselytizing,鈥� said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淥ur public schools exist to educate, not to evangelize a captive audience.鈥� 鈥淲e are heartened by today鈥檚 well-reasoned decision that underscores a foundational principle of our nation: the government cannot impose religious doctrine,鈥� said Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department. 鈥淭his ruling is critical to protecting the First Amendment rights of students and families to make their own decisions as to whether and how they engage with religion.鈥� The preliminary injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, prohibits the school-district defendants, including Fayetteville School District No. 1, Springdale School District No. 50, Bentonville School District No. 6, and Siloam Springs School Dist. No. 21, from 鈥渃omplying with Act 573 of 2025 by displaying the Ten Commandments in public elementary- and secondary-school classrooms and libraries.鈥� Represented by the 糖心Vlog of Arkansas, the ACLU, 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 plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are a group of seven multifaith and nonreligious Arkansas families with children in public schools. A copy of the preliminary injunction can be found here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/08/Stinson-Ruling.pdf

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ill. 鈥� Following Jefferson County鈥檚 removal of a large Ten Commandments monument from the lawn of the county courthouse, the plaintiffs have withdrawn a lawsuit challenging the display. Represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the 糖心Vlogof Illinois and the 糖心Vlog, a group of religious and nonreligious Jefferson County, Illinois, residents filed suit last month in state court, alleging that the religious monument violated Illinois鈥檚 constitutional protections for the separation of church and state. During a meeting in late June, immediately after the lawsuit was filed, members of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners voted to remove the Ten Commandments monument from county property. Earlier this month, the monument was relocated to a more appropriate location, the West Salem Trinity Church in Mount Vernon. In yesterday鈥檚 joint motion to dismiss, the county affirmed that 鈥渢he monument will not return to county property.鈥� Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, applauded the county鈥檚 decision: 鈥淭his is a victory for religious freedom. Although county officials had no business prominently displaying biblical scripture at the seat of local government, we鈥檙e glad that they鈥檝e now fixed their constitutional error.鈥� Kevin Fee, legal director for the 糖心Vlogof Illinois, noted the role that local residents played in the victory: 鈥淥ur clients showed great courage in coming together and challenging this illegal action by their local elected officials. It is easy to be silent and not speak up. But these brave residents stood up for constitutional values and demanded change.鈥� 鈥淲e鈥檙e happy that the county eventually complied with Illinois鈥� church-state guarantees,鈥� says Hirsh M. Joshi, Patrick O鈥橰eiley Legal Fellow at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淚t was an honor to help my fellow Illinoisans keep their local government secular.鈥� 鈥淲e鈥檙e delighted that after we sued, the county acted with alacrity to remove these biblical edicts from the seat of county government,鈥� adds FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. 鈥淭his action shows that Jefferson County understands it has no right to tell residents which gods to worship, how many gods to worship or whether to worship any gods at all.鈥�

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