A new legal fight in the Fifth Circuit isn’t really about wall décor—it’s about who gets to shape a child’s moral and religious world: families, or the state. The Center for Inquiry just weighed in, arguing Texas’ Ten Commandments classroom mandate crosses a constitutional line—and the ripple effects matter even here in Dearborn, where faith diversity isn’t a slogan, it’s daily life.
A lawsuit over posters… and power
Texas Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10) requires public schools to display a donated, state-specified Ten Commandments poster in every classroom, with minimum size requirements and prominent placement.[2] Supporters frame it as history and “moral clarity.” Opponents call it government-endorsed religion aimed at children who can’t exactly “opt out” of a wall they must face for 13 years.
That clash is now in Rabbi Mara Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, et al., where a coalition of multi-faith and nonreligious families sued multiple school districts to stop implementation.[3] A federal district judge blocked enforcement (at least as to certain districts), and Texas appealed—putting the dispute in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with all active judges hearing arguments in January 2026.[2]
And this isn’t just a Texas soap opera. The Fifth Circuit heard the Texas case alongside a similar Louisiana fight, Roake v. Brumley, involving a nearly parallel Ten Commandments classroom mandate.[6]
Enter the Center for Inquiry: “A child is not a creature of the State”
On December 29, 2025, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) filed an amicus brief (a “friend of the court” filing) supporting the families challenging Texas’ mandate.[1] In plain English: CFI is telling the court, “This isn’t just about church-state separation in the abstract; it’s about parents’ rights—especially parents who are atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, or simply not on board with state-sponsored religious messaging.”
CFI’s brief leans hard on two pillars:
- Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process): parents have a fundamental right to direct a child’s upbringing and education (think Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters).
- First Amendment: the state can’t coerce religious belief or privilege religion over nonreligion, and “exposure” itself can be a burden when kids are a captive audience in school.
CFI frames S.B. 10 as exactly the kind of ideological overreach those constitutional protections were meant to stop—especially because it mandates a specific religious text in every classroom, regardless of a family’s beliefs.[1] 2025.12.29-MFL-to-File-Amicus-B…
Richard Conn’s point: politicians benefit—kids pay the price
CFI General Counsel Richard Conn put it bluntly, and honestly, it’s hard to improve on it:
“CFI recognizes that legislators in states with highly religious constituents may gain political advantage by supporting government endorsements of religion. But even if they genuinely believe that all children should be exposed to religion for their own good, that is for each parent, not legislators, to decide.”[4]
That’s the center of gravity here. This case isn’t asking whether the Ten Commandments are meaningful. Many people hold them sacred. The case is asking whether the government can require them on the wall in every public-school classroom, for everyone’s children, as a default “moral baseline.”
In other words: Who owns the moral operating system of childhood—families, or lawmakers?
The other side: “It’s history, not religion” (and the judges aren’t letting anyone coast)
Texas’ defense (and similar arguments in other states) generally runs like this: the Ten Commandments influenced Western law, they’re part of American tradition, and a poster is a “passive” display—students can ignore it.[2]
But the pushback is just as direct. During arguments, families’ attorney Jon Youngwood responded to the “just look away” idea with the kind of line that sticks:
“They can’t just look away, Your Honor… Not for 13 years. Not in every class. Not every minute of every day.”[2]
Civil liberties groups argue that constant, state-mandated exposure is the point: it normalizes government-sponsored religion in a space where children are required to be present and are unusually susceptible to social pressure.[5]
Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit already has relevant recent history: in June 2025, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed an injunction against Louisiana’s Ten Commandments classroom law in Roake v. Brumley, emphasizing that a compulsory classroom display—without genuine curricular integration—serves no secular educational purpose and functions as a religious mandate.[6]
So yes: the “history not religion” argument is on the table. But it’s not strolling through unchallenged.
Why this matters in Dearborn, specifically
Dearborn doesn’t need a lecture on religious diversity. We live it.
In our public schools, you can have a Muslim student fasting for Ramadan, a Christian student in youth group, a Jewish student preparing for a holiday, a Hindu student, a student who’s proudly secular, and plenty of kids who are still figuring it all out—because that’s what childhood is. And when schools handle faith with respect and neutrality, students feel like they belong. When the state picks a “default” religion, somebody is inevitably told—quietly or loudly—you’re the exception here.
This is where S.B. 10’s logic gets dangerous. Even if some families find the posted text comforting, the policy still tells everyone else: the government is comfortable placing one tradition’s religious code in the center of the room as the “official vibe.”
Dearborn residents should recognize the broader pattern: across the country, “parents’ rights” rhetoric is often deployed selectively—championed when it helps a majority impose its values, dismissed when minorities ask for equal dignity. The constitutional principle at stake isn’t “anti-religion.” It’s anti-establishment: public schools shouldn’t be instruments for state-backed theology, whether that theology is popular or not.
And Michigan has already wrestled with this impulse. A Michigan House bill analysis from 2001 discussing Ten Commandments displays warned that schools posting them were effectively inviting lawsuits they were likely to lose—because courts have repeatedly found mandated religious displays in public schools constitutionally suspect.[7]
Michigan’s current landscape is different from Texas—different politics, different courts, different statutes. But the cultural pressures are not alien to us. We’ve seen school debates here get intense fast whenever identity, morality, and childhood collide. The lesson worth protecting is simple: public education works best when it’s a shared civic space, not a sectarian one.
A Green-leaning, pro-freedom takeaway (without the bumper-sticker brain)
Here’s the deal: the safest government stance on religion is not hostility—it’s humility.
Let families teach their faith. Let students practice their faith. Let communities celebrate their traditions. And let public schools stay focused on what they’re uniquely built to do: educate kids across differences, prepare them for citizenship, and protect every student’s equal standing.
A state-mandated Ten Commandments poster in every classroom isn’t a return to “values.” It’s a return to state power deciding which values get the microphone and which families get the side-eye.
Dearborn—because it’s unusually diverse, unusually politically awake, and unusually unwilling to pretend differences don’t exist—should be among the loudest voices saying: no government gets to draft our kids into a religious narrative. Not in Texas, not in Michigan, not anywhere.
Sources (with footnotes)
[1] Brief of Center for Inquiry as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD, Fifth Circuit), filed Dec. 29, 2025. 2025.12.29-MFL-to-File-Amicus-B…
[2] Jaden Edison, “Texas defends law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments. Here’s what to know.” The Texas Tribune (Jan. 20, 2026).
[3] Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, “Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District” case overview and timeline.
[4] “Is Texas Turning Into a Nanny State?” Houston Press (Jan. 2026) (quoting CFI General Counsel Richard Conn).
[5] ACLU of Texas press release quoting ACLU attorney Sarah Corning on S.B. 10 and student belonging.
[6] Roake v. Brumley, Fifth Circuit opinion summary (Justia) (June 20, 2025).
[7] Michigan Legislature bill analysis (House Bill 4226, 2001) discussing Ten Commandments displays and litigation risk.
[8] Education Week, “Religion in Public Schools, Explained” (Aug. 23, 2024) (overview of constitutional boundaries in schools).
[9] Associated Press, reporting on Ramadan accommodations in public schools including Dearborn, Michigan.
[10] A&O Shearman news release describing its pro bono filing on behalf of CFI in the Texas case (Jan. 13, 2026).
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Court proceedings evolve quickly; filings, rulings, and schedules may change after publication. Dearborn Blog aims for accuracy and fairness—if you spot an error, have a correction, or want a relevant update added, email info@dearbornblog.com.
Dearborn Blog 