WEBVTT
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:04.639
The following program is a presentation of the Ohio School Boards Association.
00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:15.439
Could a state require every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments?
00:00:15.679 --> 00:00:17.440
Hey everyone, it's Scott Gurfin.
00:00:17.679 --> 00:00:22.000
Right now, courts across the country are answering that question very differently.
00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:25.359
And that disagreement could eventually end up before the U.S.
00:00:25.519 --> 00:00:26.399
Supreme Court.
00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:40.320
On this week's OSBA Legal Ledger Sidebar, I'm joined by OSBA attorneys Sarah Clark and Jenny Harden, and we're going to talk about why two federal courts looked at the nearly same issue and reached almost opposite conclusions.
00:00:40.560 --> 00:00:42.960
Sarah and Jenny, thanks for being here.
00:00:43.280 --> 00:00:53.759
And even though these cases aren't happening in Ohio, school leaders here are watching closely because the Supreme Court's approach to religion in schools has clearly shifted in recent years.
00:00:53.920 --> 00:00:55.520
So let's get into these cases.
00:00:55.600 --> 00:00:58.799
And Sarah, let's start with the Texas case and what happened there.
00:00:59.119 --> 00:01:05.120
Yeah, so this is a case, as you mentioned, out of Texas, it's the Alamo Independent School District versus Nathan case.
00:01:05.280 --> 00:01:08.400
And in that case, Texas did exactly like what we're talking about.
00:01:08.560 --> 00:01:13.200
They enacted a law that required public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.
00:01:14.480 --> 00:01:36.400
There were several parents from multiple different religious backgrounds that ended up suing the district and said this is a violation under the Establishment Clause, which uh prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing a religion, and also argued that it violated the free exercise clause, which protects individuals' uh rights to exercise religion without government interference.
00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:40.719
And so Texas and Louisiana both had very similar laws.
00:01:40.799 --> 00:01:51.359
Um in the Louisiana uh instance, they said this wasn't ready for review yet by a court, but in Texas, um, the district court initially blocked that and said, yes, we agree.
00:01:51.519 --> 00:01:53.519
This violates the establishment clause.
00:01:53.599 --> 00:02:06.239
It it um there's no secular purpose to the law and it undermines parental rights and basically coerces children into um observing the religious sect that is um uh displayed.
00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:18.639
And so the Fifth Circuit, this got appealed to the Fifth Circuit, um, and it combined both the Texas and the Louisiana cases, and it reversed the district court's decision, and they relied on a case called Kennedy versus Bremerton.
00:02:19.199 --> 00:02:26.719
Yeah, and we've talked about Kennedy, that decision on this podcast before, and that case really changed how the courts analyze uh church-state questions.
00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:28.000
Yeah, that's exactly right.
00:02:28.159 --> 00:02:32.719
So um Kennedy basically abandoned a very long-standing test that's called Lemon.
00:02:32.800 --> 00:02:39.759
Um, Lemon versus Kurtzman was a test that for many, many years served as how we analyzed establishment clause cases.
00:02:39.919 --> 00:02:43.360
And they were looking at things like is the purpose of the law secular?
00:02:43.520 --> 00:02:45.759
Does it inhibit or advance religion?
00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:49.039
Um, and does it excessively entangle government and religion?
00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:50.319
And so that was the test.
00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:56.879
When we had that test in place, there was a decision out of Kentucky that the Supreme Court analyzed called Stone versus Graham.
00:02:56.960 --> 00:02:58.479
That's a 1980 case.
00:02:58.639 --> 00:03:02.159
Um, and they basically said, yes, this is under the Lemon test.
00:03:02.479 --> 00:03:06.159
The posting of the Ten Commandments violates the establishment clause.
00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:14.000
Um and so for many, many years, you know, obviously whatever the math works out to there, but back to 1980, uh, that has been the law, right?
00:03:14.080 --> 00:03:15.759
The Supreme Court weighed in on that.
00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:24.000
Um when this court took a look at this, the Fifth Circuit, they said you can apply that stone case because it relied on Lemon.
00:03:24.080 --> 00:03:27.520
It relied on this test that the court overruled in Bremerton.
00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:30.560
And we're throwing all these case names out there, but that's which I realize.
00:03:30.639 --> 00:03:36.879
But basically they were saying that the legal framework that we've used for 40 plus years is no longer the framework anymore.
00:03:36.960 --> 00:03:46.639
Um, and so the new framework, this Kennedy framework, is basically asking the question: does the law resemble a founding era religious establishment?
00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:48.080
That's our new test.
00:03:48.560 --> 00:03:53.280
And so I think there's a question probably about what does that mean, right?
00:03:53.599 --> 00:03:57.759
Yeah, so what does the court mean when it talks about history and tradition?
00:03:58.080 --> 00:03:59.759
Yeah, so they that is a great question.
00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:03.120
And I think that's what we're going to be grappling with for many, many years.
00:04:03.360 --> 00:04:13.840
Um, and the court basically says that that requires you to delve back into these historical sources and scholarship from the late 18th century, right?
00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:22.319
Which everybody is just gonna um, you know, what is the what did the founding fathers understand these words to mean when they when they wrote the Constitution?
00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:32.319
Um and so the court spends a lot of time, this is an 118-page decision, they spend a lot of time in this decision discussing what an establishment of religion has historically meant.
00:04:32.399 --> 00:04:39.600
And they're focusing on things like the Church of England and the religious establishments of colonial times, in the opinion.
00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:49.759
And so when they do that, they're looking at things like um the fact that these historical establishments required things like compulsory church uh attendance, right?
00:04:49.920 --> 00:04:56.399
If you didn't attend church, you would be fined, you'd have punishment for not attending, you couldn't hold a legislative position.
00:04:56.560 --> 00:05:03.439
Um, and uh there were religious taxes, so taxes that were levied to repair churches and sort of manage the church.
00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:09.279
And so what the court concluded in this case, the Fifth Circuit said, this doesn't look anything like that, right?
00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:15.199
This is a classroom display in the building, and that doesn't resemble these historical establishments.
00:05:15.279 --> 00:05:19.199
It's not punishing anybody for not um who rejects those Ten Commandments.
00:05:19.279 --> 00:05:22.319
Um, they're not levying any taxes when they post these signs.
00:05:22.399 --> 00:05:26.480
And so the court ultimately said this isn't a violation of the establishment clause.
00:05:26.959 --> 00:05:32.800
So how did the court handle arguments that these displays uh could still feel uh coercive to students?
00:05:33.120 --> 00:05:34.160
Yeah, they disagreed.
00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:41.519
So they said in both cases, you know, neither Texas nor the Louisiana law required students to engage in religious exercise.
00:05:41.680 --> 00:05:49.519
There was no requirement that they observe these, um they weren't taught to adopt the commandments, and so there really wasn't any sort of coercive effect.
00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:53.120
It didn't, um there was no punishment for for disagreeing with them.
00:05:53.279 --> 00:05:58.399
Um I think that the language in the court decision said a poster is not a summons to prayer, right?
00:05:58.480 --> 00:06:00.560
So they they did not buy those arguments.
00:06:01.120 --> 00:06:05.759
So, Jenny, the Arkansas court saw things uh differently, right?
00:06:06.079 --> 00:06:06.399
They did.
00:06:06.560 --> 00:06:08.160
Yeah, they did see things differently.
00:06:08.319 --> 00:06:09.920
So the law is very similar.
00:06:10.079 --> 00:06:13.199
The Arkansas law is uh Act 573.
00:06:13.439 --> 00:06:20.079
It required posting the Ten Commandments in every school room uh in public schools across the state.
00:06:20.319 --> 00:06:25.360
Um it required a specific text from a specific Bible.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:42.000
Um, and parents from multiple religious backgrounds, just as in Texas and Louisiana, came forward and said, we're not we we feel that this is an infringement of both uh the establishment clause and our free exercise rights under both under the First Amendment.
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:45.439
In this case, the district court said, we agree.
00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:57.279
Um this requirement is a violation of those First Amendment rights, and it blocked the enforcement of the statute, but only in the eight districts where parents challenged the law.
00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:04.480
So did the Arkansas court, though, apply the same uh history and tradition analysis from the Kennedy case?
00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:06.959
It it ish, sort of.
00:07:07.120 --> 00:07:18.480
Um, it said yes, we're gonna apply that same test, and in fact, it had uh it reviewed some findings or information provided to it by a history uh expert.
00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:24.160
Um, but it reached a completely different conclusion, even though it you applied the same tests.
00:07:24.319 --> 00:07:29.839
First of all, it didn't reject Stone versus Graham, it said Stone versus Graham is still good law.
00:07:30.079 --> 00:07:43.199
Just because the Kennedy court rejected the Lemon test doesn't mean that they rejected all of the progeny or cases that emerged from that test, including uh Stone v.
00:07:43.360 --> 00:07:44.000
Graham.
00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:55.040
Um, it looked at the historical arguments uh and it said uh that state-mandated religious speech in public schools is still prohibited, which the court says in Kennedy.
00:07:55.199 --> 00:07:57.120
So Kennedy doesn't abandon that.
00:07:57.759 --> 00:08:17.519
Um and then it said that there were no historical practices or understandings to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and it rejected the application of this historical practices and understandings test in this context, uh, particularly because it felt that the speech was coercive.
00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:22.720
So if the court didn't focus on the Kennedy test, uh what did it focus on?
00:08:23.120 --> 00:08:30.879
It focused a lot on the experiences of the individual families, the parents, the students involved in the case.
00:08:31.040 --> 00:08:39.840
Um it talked about the religious diversity issue, the fact that the Ten Commandments that were posted were based on one particular uh religion.
00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:54.159
Uh it talked about the fact that parents have the right to direct the religious education of their students, which is what the Supreme Court again focused on another case that we haven't actually mentioned yet, which is the Mahmoud decision uh that came down last year.
00:08:54.240 --> 00:09:08.240
Um, and they talked about the fact that there's societal pressure on kids in stuff in schools, um, and whether students would perceive this posting to be the endorsement of one religious tradition over others.
00:09:08.960 --> 00:09:16.399
So you've essentially got two courts looking at very similar laws, reaching very different conclusions.
00:09:16.559 --> 00:09:22.879
Uh kind of sounds like the legal systems version of uh referees calling the same play differently.
00:09:23.279 --> 00:09:25.759
That's a great analogy, and that's exactly what's happening here.
00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:29.279
So we we talk about the fact that the Constitution doesn't come with footnotes, right?
00:09:29.360 --> 00:09:33.360
It doesn't outline how to analyze this or what they were thinking when they wrote it.
00:09:33.519 --> 00:09:49.519
Um and so you've got different courts that are interpreting this differently, you've got different philosophies at play, you've got different readings of and how much weight you should be giving court precedent, and you've got different views, as we talked about, of what history and tradition means and what we're factoring in on that decision as well.
00:09:49.759 --> 00:09:51.679
Yeah, and it's it's not a new debate.
00:09:51.759 --> 00:09:55.840
I mean, this is like a a quilt that we keep adding more and more pieces to.
00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:04.159
Um, so the question of how religion and public schools interact with one another is debated, has been debated for many, many years.
00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:10.720
And the only thing that's changing is how courts are addressing these questions with this new structure.
00:10:11.039 --> 00:10:11.279
Yeah.
00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:15.759
Uh Jenny, lawyers love talking about uh circuit splits.
00:10:16.240 --> 00:10:16.399
Yeah.
00:10:16.799 --> 00:10:17.360
Circuit splits.
00:10:17.440 --> 00:10:18.480
Um why is that?
00:10:18.799 --> 00:10:19.279
Um okay.
00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:21.120
Well, circuit splits are super interesting.
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:24.879
That's where two circuit courts take different positions.
00:10:25.039 --> 00:10:31.919
Now that hasn't quite happened here yet, because what we have is a circuit court decision with Louisiana and Texas.
00:10:32.080 --> 00:10:33.840
Um that's the Fifth Circuit.
00:10:34.159 --> 00:10:38.159
And then we have a district court decision with the Arkansas case.
00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:47.440
So there are 94 um district courts that cover regions, and then there are circuit courts which cover larger regions, and then there's a federal circuit court.
00:10:47.519 --> 00:10:48.720
I'm not gonna get into that.
00:10:49.200 --> 00:10:54.080
Um so the Supreme Court sits above them all as the ultimate decider.
00:10:54.240 --> 00:11:07.919
Um, and when there's a true circuit split where two federal circuit courts have taken completely varying decisions, that's when the Supreme Court comes in and says, no, no, this is the correct interpretation, this is the way we're gonna go.
00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:10.159
Again, that hasn't happened yet.
00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:15.519
The Arkansas decision is likely to be um uh appealed to the circuit.
00:11:15.759 --> 00:11:18.799
So now we wait to see two things.
00:11:18.960 --> 00:11:25.279
Uh whether there is a circuit court split in this case, and whether the Supreme Court takes that up.
00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:27.039
They don't always take them up.
00:11:27.360 --> 00:11:35.039
So, Sarah, does Ohio currently have a law similar to the ones that are being challenged in Texas, Louisiana, and uh Arkansas?
00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:37.039
Um no, the short answer is no.
00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:43.039
Uh there is the probably the closest thing is Senate Bill 34, which is called the Historical Educational Displays Act.
00:11:43.120 --> 00:11:43.840
This is pending.
00:11:43.919 --> 00:11:53.919
This hasn't been adopted yet or passed yet, but that has uh the Ten Commandments on a list of optional uh documents that the district can choose to display.
00:11:54.080 --> 00:12:03.200
And so the district would have to, or schools would have to basically adopt a policy that displays at least four of nine uh historical documents, and that's one of them.
00:12:03.360 --> 00:12:07.840
So so why does this matter for Ohio districts if we don't have this type of law?
00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:10.399
I think it's something obviously that they could adopt.
00:12:10.559 --> 00:12:10.720
Sure.
00:12:10.879 --> 00:12:17.759
So that's first, but also beyond the law, I think that the the conversations that are happening in these cases are very important, right?
00:12:17.840 --> 00:12:22.799
We're seeing a tremendous number of um questions come up about religion in school.
00:12:22.879 --> 00:12:24.559
We're seeing a lot of challenges, as we've mentioned.
00:12:24.639 --> 00:12:27.279
Some of these 40-year precedents are being overturned.
00:12:27.440 --> 00:12:36.159
And so we're we're getting a lot of um feedback from the courts about where that line is between establishing religion and allowing people to exercise the religion in schools.
00:12:36.320 --> 00:12:42.799
And so uh we have that case, the Kennedy case, that history his history, history and tradition test.
00:12:42.960 --> 00:12:51.440
And this is an opportunity for you know the Supreme Court in this case to sort of weigh in on what that means and how administrators, school districts, um, everyone should apply it.
00:12:51.840 --> 00:12:53.519
Well, thanks for breaking all this down.
00:12:53.679 --> 00:12:58.879
And uh, Jenny, where where can our uh listeners, viewers find out more information?
00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:12.480
Well, they can find out from the same place we found it out from, which is uh the school law summary that the lawyers at the in the legal division prepare uh four times a year for people who are members of the legal assistance fund.
00:13:12.799 --> 00:13:28.080
So if your district isn't a member of the legal assistance fund and you'd like to see the school law summary, which summarizes these and other important developments in school law across the country, um, you can join the legal assistance fund for$250 a year.
00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:30.799
And this publication will be one of your benefits.
00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:32.639
You can also call us and talk to us.
00:13:32.879 --> 00:13:36.639
We shockingly enjoy talking about this stuff.
00:13:36.960 --> 00:13:37.200
Right.
00:13:37.279 --> 00:13:42.240
And if you missed it on the screen there, it's uh 855 OSBA Law.
00:13:42.559 --> 00:13:42.879
Exactly.
00:13:43.120 --> 00:13:48.480
Is the OSBA legal hotline, and callers are waiting to hear from you, right?
00:13:48.720 --> 00:13:49.120
That's right.
00:13:49.759 --> 00:13:51.440
Operators are standing by.
00:13:52.480 --> 00:14:04.639
Well, these cases may not directly involve Ohio schools right now, but they are part of a much larger national conversation about religion, public education, and where courts draw constitutional lines.
00:14:04.879 --> 00:14:10.480
And as those legal standards continue to evolve, school leaders everywhere are paying attention.
00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:14.159
Thanks for joining us on this week's Legal Ledger sidebar.
00:14:14.480 --> 00:14:18.240
Be sure to subscribe, and we'll see you on the next episode.
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:04.639
The following program is a presentation of the Ohio School Boards Association.
00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:15.439
Could a state require every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments?
00:00:15.679 --> 00:00:17.440
Hey everyone, it's Scott Gurfin.
00:00:17.679 --> 00:00:22.000
Right now, courts across the country are answering that question very differently.
00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:25.359
And that disagreement could eventually end up before the U.S.
00:00:25.519 --> 00:00:26.399
Supreme Court.
00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:40.320
On this week's OSBA Legal Ledger Sidebar, I'm joined by OSBA attorneys Sarah Clark and Jenny Harden, and we're going to talk about why two federal courts looked at the nearly same issue and reached almost opposite conclusions.
00:00:40.560 --> 00:00:42.960
Sarah and Jenny, thanks for being here.
00:00:43.280 --> 00:00:53.759
And even though these cases aren't happening in Ohio, school leaders here are watching closely because the Supreme Court's approach to religion in schools has clearly shifted in recent years.
00:00:53.920 --> 00:00:55.520
So let's get into these cases.
00:00:55.600 --> 00:00:58.799
And Sarah, let's start with the Texas case and what happened there.
00:00:59.119 --> 00:01:05.120
Yeah, so this is a case, as you mentioned, out of Texas, it's the Alamo Independent School District versus Nathan case.
00:01:05.280 --> 00:01:08.400
And in that case, Texas did exactly like what we're talking about.
00:01:08.560 --> 00:01:13.200
They enacted a law that required public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.
00:01:14.480 --> 00:01:36.400
There were several parents from multiple different religious backgrounds that ended up suing the district and said this is a violation under the Establishment Clause, which uh prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing a religion, and also argued that it violated the free exercise clause, which protects individuals' uh rights to exercise religion without government interference.
00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:40.719
And so Texas and Louisiana both had very similar laws.
00:01:40.799 --> 00:01:51.359
Um in the Louisiana uh instance, they said this wasn't ready for review yet by a court, but in Texas, um, the district court initially blocked that and said, yes, we agree.
00:01:51.519 --> 00:01:53.519
This violates the establishment clause.
00:01:53.599 --> 00:02:06.239
It it um there's no secular purpose to the law and it undermines parental rights and basically coerces children into um observing the religious sect that is um uh displayed.
00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:18.639
And so the Fifth Circuit, this got appealed to the Fifth Circuit, um, and it combined both the Texas and the Louisiana cases, and it reversed the district court's decision, and they relied on a case called Kennedy versus Bremerton.
00:02:19.199 --> 00:02:26.719
Yeah, and we've talked about Kennedy, that decision on this podcast before, and that case really changed how the courts analyze uh church-state questions.
00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:28.000
Yeah, that's exactly right.
00:02:28.159 --> 00:02:32.719
So um Kennedy basically abandoned a very long-standing test that's called Lemon.
00:02:32.800 --> 00:02:39.759
Um, Lemon versus Kurtzman was a test that for many, many years served as how we analyzed establishment clause cases.
00:02:39.919 --> 00:02:43.360
And they were looking at things like is the purpose of the law secular?
00:02:43.520 --> 00:02:45.759
Does it inhibit or advance religion?
00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:49.039
Um, and does it excessively entangle government and religion?
00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:50.319
And so that was the test.
00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:56.879
When we had that test in place, there was a decision out of Kentucky that the Supreme Court analyzed called Stone versus Graham.
00:02:56.960 --> 00:02:58.479
That's a 1980 case.
00:02:58.639 --> 00:03:02.159
Um, and they basically said, yes, this is under the Lemon test.
00:03:02.479 --> 00:03:06.159
The posting of the Ten Commandments violates the establishment clause.
00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:14.000
Um and so for many, many years, you know, obviously whatever the math works out to there, but back to 1980, uh, that has been the law, right?
00:03:14.080 --> 00:03:15.759
The Supreme Court weighed in on that.
00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:24.000
Um when this court took a look at this, the Fifth Circuit, they said you can apply that stone case because it relied on Lemon.
00:03:24.080 --> 00:03:27.520
It relied on this test that the court overruled in Bremerton.
00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:30.560
And we're throwing all these case names out there, but that's which I realize.
00:03:30.639 --> 00:03:36.879
But basically they were saying that the legal framework that we've used for 40 plus years is no longer the framework anymore.
00:03:36.960 --> 00:03:46.639
Um, and so the new framework, this Kennedy framework, is basically asking the question: does the law resemble a founding era religious establishment?
00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:48.080
That's our new test.
00:03:48.560 --> 00:03:53.280
And so I think there's a question probably about what does that mean, right?
00:03:53.599 --> 00:03:57.759
Yeah, so what does the court mean when it talks about history and tradition?
00:03:58.080 --> 00:03:59.759
Yeah, so they that is a great question.
00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:03.120
And I think that's what we're going to be grappling with for many, many years.
00:04:03.360 --> 00:04:13.840
Um, and the court basically says that that requires you to delve back into these historical sources and scholarship from the late 18th century, right?
00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:22.319
Which everybody is just gonna um, you know, what is the what did the founding fathers understand these words to mean when they when they wrote the Constitution?
00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:32.319
Um and so the court spends a lot of time, this is an 118-page decision, they spend a lot of time in this decision discussing what an establishment of religion has historically meant.
00:04:32.399 --> 00:04:39.600
And they're focusing on things like the Church of England and the religious establishments of colonial times, in the opinion.
00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:49.759
And so when they do that, they're looking at things like um the fact that these historical establishments required things like compulsory church uh attendance, right?
00:04:49.920 --> 00:04:56.399
If you didn't attend church, you would be fined, you'd have punishment for not attending, you couldn't hold a legislative position.
00:04:56.560 --> 00:05:03.439
Um, and uh there were religious taxes, so taxes that were levied to repair churches and sort of manage the church.
00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:09.279
And so what the court concluded in this case, the Fifth Circuit said, this doesn't look anything like that, right?
00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:15.199
This is a classroom display in the building, and that doesn't resemble these historical establishments.
00:05:15.279 --> 00:05:19.199
It's not punishing anybody for not um who rejects those Ten Commandments.
00:05:19.279 --> 00:05:22.319
Um, they're not levying any taxes when they post these signs.
00:05:22.399 --> 00:05:26.480
And so the court ultimately said this isn't a violation of the establishment clause.
00:05:26.959 --> 00:05:32.800
So how did the court handle arguments that these displays uh could still feel uh coercive to students?
00:05:33.120 --> 00:05:34.160
Yeah, they disagreed.
00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:41.519
So they said in both cases, you know, neither Texas nor the Louisiana law required students to engage in religious exercise.
00:05:41.680 --> 00:05:49.519
There was no requirement that they observe these, um they weren't taught to adopt the commandments, and so there really wasn't any sort of coercive effect.
00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:53.120
It didn't, um there was no punishment for for disagreeing with them.
00:05:53.279 --> 00:05:58.399
Um I think that the language in the court decision said a poster is not a summons to prayer, right?
00:05:58.480 --> 00:06:00.560
So they they did not buy those arguments.
00:06:01.120 --> 00:06:05.759
So, Jenny, the Arkansas court saw things uh differently, right?
00:06:06.079 --> 00:06:06.399
They did.
00:06:06.560 --> 00:06:08.160
Yeah, they did see things differently.
00:06:08.319 --> 00:06:09.920
So the law is very similar.
00:06:10.079 --> 00:06:13.199
The Arkansas law is uh Act 573.
00:06:13.439 --> 00:06:20.079
It required posting the Ten Commandments in every school room uh in public schools across the state.
00:06:20.319 --> 00:06:25.360
Um it required a specific text from a specific Bible.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:42.000
Um, and parents from multiple religious backgrounds, just as in Texas and Louisiana, came forward and said, we're not we we feel that this is an infringement of both uh the establishment clause and our free exercise rights under both under the First Amendment.
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:45.439
In this case, the district court said, we agree.
00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:57.279
Um this requirement is a violation of those First Amendment rights, and it blocked the enforcement of the statute, but only in the eight districts where parents challenged the law.
00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:04.480
So did the Arkansas court, though, apply the same uh history and tradition analysis from the Kennedy case?
00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:06.959
It it ish, sort of.
00:07:07.120 --> 00:07:18.480
Um, it said yes, we're gonna apply that same test, and in fact, it had uh it reviewed some findings or information provided to it by a history uh expert.
00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:24.160
Um, but it reached a completely different conclusion, even though it you applied the same tests.
00:07:24.319 --> 00:07:29.839
First of all, it didn't reject Stone versus Graham, it said Stone versus Graham is still good law.
00:07:30.079 --> 00:07:43.199
Just because the Kennedy court rejected the Lemon test doesn't mean that they rejected all of the progeny or cases that emerged from that test, including uh Stone v.
00:07:43.360 --> 00:07:44.000
Graham.
00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:55.040
Um, it looked at the historical arguments uh and it said uh that state-mandated religious speech in public schools is still prohibited, which the court says in Kennedy.
00:07:55.199 --> 00:07:57.120
So Kennedy doesn't abandon that.
00:07:57.759 --> 00:08:17.519
Um and then it said that there were no historical practices or understandings to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and it rejected the application of this historical practices and understandings test in this context, uh, particularly because it felt that the speech was coercive.
00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:22.720
So if the court didn't focus on the Kennedy test, uh what did it focus on?
00:08:23.120 --> 00:08:30.879
It focused a lot on the experiences of the individual families, the parents, the students involved in the case.
00:08:31.040 --> 00:08:39.840
Um it talked about the religious diversity issue, the fact that the Ten Commandments that were posted were based on one particular uh religion.
00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:54.159
Uh it talked about the fact that parents have the right to direct the religious education of their students, which is what the Supreme Court again focused on another case that we haven't actually mentioned yet, which is the Mahmoud decision uh that came down last year.
00:08:54.240 --> 00:09:08.240
Um, and they talked about the fact that there's societal pressure on kids in stuff in schools, um, and whether students would perceive this posting to be the endorsement of one religious tradition over others.
00:09:08.960 --> 00:09:16.399
So you've essentially got two courts looking at very similar laws, reaching very different conclusions.
00:09:16.559 --> 00:09:22.879
Uh kind of sounds like the legal systems version of uh referees calling the same play differently.
00:09:23.279 --> 00:09:25.759
That's a great analogy, and that's exactly what's happening here.
00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:29.279
So we we talk about the fact that the Constitution doesn't come with footnotes, right?
00:09:29.360 --> 00:09:33.360
It doesn't outline how to analyze this or what they were thinking when they wrote it.
00:09:33.519 --> 00:09:49.519
Um and so you've got different courts that are interpreting this differently, you've got different philosophies at play, you've got different readings of and how much weight you should be giving court precedent, and you've got different views, as we talked about, of what history and tradition means and what we're factoring in on that decision as well.
00:09:49.759 --> 00:09:51.679
Yeah, and it's it's not a new debate.
00:09:51.759 --> 00:09:55.840
I mean, this is like a a quilt that we keep adding more and more pieces to.
00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:04.159
Um, so the question of how religion and public schools interact with one another is debated, has been debated for many, many years.
00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:10.720
And the only thing that's changing is how courts are addressing these questions with this new structure.
00:10:11.039 --> 00:10:11.279
Yeah.
00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:15.759
Uh Jenny, lawyers love talking about uh circuit splits.
00:10:16.240 --> 00:10:16.399
Yeah.
00:10:16.799 --> 00:10:17.360
Circuit splits.
00:10:17.440 --> 00:10:18.480
Um why is that?
00:10:18.799 --> 00:10:19.279
Um okay.
00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:21.120
Well, circuit splits are super interesting.
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:24.879
That's where two circuit courts take different positions.
00:10:25.039 --> 00:10:31.919
Now that hasn't quite happened here yet, because what we have is a circuit court decision with Louisiana and Texas.
00:10:32.080 --> 00:10:33.840
Um that's the Fifth Circuit.
00:10:34.159 --> 00:10:38.159
And then we have a district court decision with the Arkansas case.
00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:47.440
So there are 94 um district courts that cover regions, and then there are circuit courts which cover larger regions, and then there's a federal circuit court.
00:10:47.519 --> 00:10:48.720
I'm not gonna get into that.
00:10:49.200 --> 00:10:54.080
Um so the Supreme Court sits above them all as the ultimate decider.
00:10:54.240 --> 00:11:07.919
Um, and when there's a true circuit split where two federal circuit courts have taken completely varying decisions, that's when the Supreme Court comes in and says, no, no, this is the correct interpretation, this is the way we're gonna go.
00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:10.159
Again, that hasn't happened yet.
00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:15.519
The Arkansas decision is likely to be um uh appealed to the circuit.
00:11:15.759 --> 00:11:18.799
So now we wait to see two things.
00:11:18.960 --> 00:11:25.279
Uh whether there is a circuit court split in this case, and whether the Supreme Court takes that up.
00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:27.039
They don't always take them up.
00:11:27.360 --> 00:11:35.039
So, Sarah, does Ohio currently have a law similar to the ones that are being challenged in Texas, Louisiana, and uh Arkansas?
00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:37.039
Um no, the short answer is no.
00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:43.039
Uh there is the probably the closest thing is Senate Bill 34, which is called the Historical Educational Displays Act.
00:11:43.120 --> 00:11:43.840
This is pending.
00:11:43.919 --> 00:11:53.919
This hasn't been adopted yet or passed yet, but that has uh the Ten Commandments on a list of optional uh documents that the district can choose to display.
00:11:54.080 --> 00:12:03.200
And so the district would have to, or schools would have to basically adopt a policy that displays at least four of nine uh historical documents, and that's one of them.
00:12:03.360 --> 00:12:07.840
So so why does this matter for Ohio districts if we don't have this type of law?
00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:10.399
I think it's something obviously that they could adopt.
00:12:10.559 --> 00:12:10.720
Sure.
00:12:10.879 --> 00:12:17.759
So that's first, but also beyond the law, I think that the the conversations that are happening in these cases are very important, right?
00:12:17.840 --> 00:12:22.799
We're seeing a tremendous number of um questions come up about religion in school.
00:12:22.879 --> 00:12:24.559
We're seeing a lot of challenges, as we've mentioned.
00:12:24.639 --> 00:12:27.279
Some of these 40-year precedents are being overturned.
00:12:27.440 --> 00:12:36.159
And so we're we're getting a lot of um feedback from the courts about where that line is between establishing religion and allowing people to exercise the religion in schools.
00:12:36.320 --> 00:12:42.799
And so uh we have that case, the Kennedy case, that history his history, history and tradition test.
00:12:42.960 --> 00:12:51.440
And this is an opportunity for you know the Supreme Court in this case to sort of weigh in on what that means and how administrators, school districts, um, everyone should apply it.
00:12:51.840 --> 00:12:53.519
Well, thanks for breaking all this down.
00:12:53.679 --> 00:12:58.879
And uh, Jenny, where where can our uh listeners, viewers find out more information?
00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:12.480
Well, they can find out from the same place we found it out from, which is uh the school law summary that the lawyers at the in the legal division prepare uh four times a year for people who are members of the legal assistance fund.
00:13:12.799 --> 00:13:28.080
So if your district isn't a member of the legal assistance fund and you'd like to see the school law summary, which summarizes these and other important developments in school law across the country, um, you can join the legal assistance fund for$250 a year.
00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:30.799
And this publication will be one of your benefits.
00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:32.639
You can also call us and talk to us.
00:13:32.879 --> 00:13:36.639
We shockingly enjoy talking about this stuff.
00:13:36.960 --> 00:13:37.200
Right.
00:13:37.279 --> 00:13:42.240
And if you missed it on the screen there, it's uh 855 OSBA Law.
00:13:42.559 --> 00:13:42.879
Exactly.
00:13:43.120 --> 00:13:48.480
Is the OSBA legal hotline, and callers are waiting to hear from you, right?
00:13:48.720 --> 00:13:49.120
That's right.
00:13:49.759 --> 00:13:51.440
Operators are standing by.
00:13:52.480 --> 00:14:04.639
Well, these cases may not directly involve Ohio schools right now, but they are part of a much larger national conversation about religion, public education, and where courts draw constitutional lines.
00:14:04.879 --> 00:14:10.480
And as those legal standards continue to evolve, school leaders everywhere are paying attention.
00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:14.159
Thanks for joining us on this week's Legal Ledger sidebar.
00:14:14.480 --> 00:14:18.240
Be sure to subscribe, and we'll see you on the next episode.
