Lawsuit claims Act 573 violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment
A group of Arkansas parents filed a federal lawsuit on June 11, 2025, challenging a newly enacted state law that mandates the permanent display of a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every public elementary and secondary school classroom and library. The law, known as Act 573, is scheduled to take effect on August 5, 2025.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the complaint alleges that Act 573 violates long-established constitutional protections against government endorsement of religion. The plaintiffs include parents of children from diverse religious and nonreligious backgrounds — including Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, Humanist, and atheist families — who argue that the law coerces public school students into religious observance.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed Act 573 into law on April 14, 2025. At a May 1 National Day of Prayer event, she praised the law, saying, “we will always stand and we will always follow the one true Creator.” The lawsuit points to this statement, and similar comments from legislators, as evidence that the law’s intent is religious, not historical.
Arkansas’s law mirrors those previously invalidated by courts. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Stone v. Graham that a nearly identical Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause by promoting religious doctrine in public schools. More recently, in Roake v. Brumley (2024), a federal court struck down a Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments displays in classrooms, finding it “facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional in all applications.”
Act 573 requires a state-prescribed version of the Ten Commandments, measuring at least 16 by 20 inches and legible from anywhere in the room, to be “prominently displayed” in every classroom and library. This version includes overtly religious directives such as “I am the Lord thy God” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The complaint argues that such messages impose specific Protestant beliefs and marginalize students who practice different faiths or none at all.
The lawsuit asserts that the law “pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture,” and interferes with parental rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing. It also alleges that the version of the Ten Commandments selected by the state excludes key elements of Jewish and Catholic interpretations, further demonstrating a denominational preference.
Among the plaintiffs are Jewish parents who object to the specific language used in the displays, such as gendered references to God and the omission of context found in Jewish tradition. Other families, including atheists and Humanists, describe the displays as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion that stigmatizes their children and pressures them to conform.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional and a preliminary and permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the Ten Commandments display mandate. The plaintiffs argue that compliance with Act 573 will result in daily constitutional violations for more than 474,000 Arkansas public school students, many of whom will be forced to view the displays every day for 13 years.
A ruling on the request for an injunction is expected before the law’s effective date of August 5, 2025. No court hearings have been scheduled yet.
The Arkansas Ten Commandments law presents a textbook example of where personal faith and public governance collide under the Constitution. At its core, this case isn’t about hostility toward religion — it’s about where the government’s authority ends. The plaintiffs are not demanding that religion be removed from private life or personal choice; rather, they argue that the state should not take sides by promoting a specific religious message to a captive student audience.
The legal problem lies not just in the religious content, but in the mandatory nature and the permanence of the displays. When public schools are instructed to post a religious directive — “I am the Lord thy God” — in every classroom, the message is clear: the state favors one religious worldview over others. Under long-standing Supreme Court doctrine, this crosses a constitutional line.
The fact that the mandated text follows a Protestant translation is particularly troubling. Religious sects have nuanced and divergent versions of the Ten Commandments, and the state’s endorsement of one — even implicitly — signals denominational preference. That is precisely what the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.
Finally, the Free Exercise claim shouldn’t be overlooked. Several plaintiffs assert that the state’s imposition of these religious messages conflicts with their own parenting choices and faith traditions. When a public school’s display of scripture forces parents to choose between public education and their spiritual autonomy, courts are likely to take a hard look. With clear precedent in cases like Stone v. Graham, the state’s defense may face serious constitutional headwinds.
Link to lawsuit: https://arkansasadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Stinson-v.-Fayetteville-School-District.pdf