“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Louisianans challenged a state law forcing public schools to prominently display the Ten Commandments in all classrooms.
What happened in this case?
In 2024, Louisiana passed a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be prominently displayed in all public school classrooms. This was in defiance of a 1980 Supreme Court ruling in a case called Stone v. Graham that struck down a nearly identical law in Kentucky. The Supreme Court made clear that requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
A group of Louisiana students and their parents sued. In 2024, a federal district court judge stopped the law from going into effect while litigation was pending, since its unconstitutionality was so clear. His decision was upheld by a panel comprised of three judges nominated by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. However, a majority of the entire Fifth Circuit voted to vacate the panel decision so the case could be decided by the whole court. The February 2026 case is Roake v. Brumley.
How did the Trump judges rule?
In a 10-7 vote made possible by all six Trump judges – Don Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Andrew Oldham, and Cory Wilson – the Fifth Circuit let the Louisiana law go into effect.
The majority opinion didn’t address whether the law was unconstitutional. Instead, they ruled that since the law hadn’t yet gone into effect, courts didn’t have enough information on how it would be implemented to make that determination. And without that information, they continued, the courts have no basis to put the law on hold while litigation proceeds.
What did Judge Ho say in his concurrence?
Judge James Ho agreed with the majority that the law should go into effect. But he did not join the majority in citing a procedural reason. Instead, he would have ruled that the law is constitutional. And he did it in a way that would appeal to Christian nationalists.
He wrote that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted based on what he claimed was “historical evidence” that the nation’s founders “presumed that there would be religion in education.” He cited quotes from the founders suggesting that religion was central to good citizenship. He approvingly quoted John Adams writing that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” He concluded that the Louisiana law “reinforces” what he claimed was the founders’ belief that American children “should be educated about the religious foundations and traditions of our country.”
What did the dissenters say?
There were three separate dissents, with a total of seven judges nominated by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden joining one or more of them. All the dissenters agreed that judges had enough information about how the law would be implemented to make the constitutional determination.
Biden Judge Irma Ramirez demonstrated that the Louisiana law left no doubt about how the Ten Commandments would be displayed. The statute gave the exact text, taken from the Protestant King James translation of the Bible. Under the law, the display must be permanently displayed in each classroom of each school, on a poster or framed document that is at least 11” x 14”. The text must be the “central focus” of the display, and it must be “printed in a large, easily readable font.” It must include a “context statement” regarding the history of the Ten Commandments in American public education.
The statute allows but does not require other materials, such as displays on documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Mayflower Compact. Since the families contend that the law is unconstitutional regardless of what other materials may also be present, Ramirez wrote, the court “knows enough” to make the legal determination.
Clinton Judge James Dennis accused the majority of “deploy[ing] ripeness as a calculated stratagem to evade” judicial precedents making the law’s unconstitutionality clear. He also demonstrated that Louisiana’s claimed secular purpose was a pretext for its actual religious motivations.
Why is the result harmful?
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling lets Louisiana establish religious orthodoxy and force it upon unwilling children. Judge Ho’s concurrence makes clear he supports that agenda. The case sets a dangerous precedent in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, the three states that comprise the Fifth Circuit.
More generally, the ruling shows the importance of having fair-minded judges to protect our rights and freedoms.
