This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Ten Commandments, although cited repeatedly by America's Founding Fathers and widely recognized as the moral code on which the U.S. was founded, in recent years have faced an orchestrated suppression campaign.
A decade ago, Roy Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, facilitated a recognition of the moral code in the state's court building, and was removed from office for that.
He was promptly re-elected by voters to the same post.
Now the fight over those laws from God is pending in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is First Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP who have filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of 46 members of Congress including Sen. Ted Cruz, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, and Rep. Chip Roy.
They are supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
"First Liberty's recent Supreme Court victories in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District make clear that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools is constitutional," explained Kelly Shackelford, chief of First Liberty.
"Our religious heritage and the best of the nation's history and traditions acknowledge the Ten Commandments as an important symbol of law and moral conduct with both religious and secular significance. Government hostility to religion and our religious history is not the law."
The issue is that judges at the entry level of the federal court system have stopped laws in Texas and Louisiana that call for posting the rules in schools.
In 2024, Louisiana adopted HB 71, which requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and colleges that receive public funding. That law was partially struck down earlier this year. Texas passed SB 10 in May, requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms. A federal judge in San Antonio issued an injunction against the implementation of the bill in select school districts, First Liberty explained.
The brief explains, "As Justice Gorsuch warned in American Legion, if individuals 'could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it . . . Courts would start to look more like legislatures, responding to social pressures rather than remedying concrete harms, in the process supplanting the right of the people and their elected representatives to govern them-selves.' If mere 'offense' suffices for standing to challenge a law, any number of legitimate legislative actions could be held up for years in litigation, which is obviously of concern to Amici."
The briefing explains the oddity of the arguments from those opposing the Ten Commandments: that there is no reason except that they "dislike" the rules.
"In other words, because the students will have to see something they disagree with or that is 'unwelcome,' that suffices for constitutional injury," the filing states.
"Both the district court's decision in this case and the panel decision in Roake are wrong and the theory of standing they embrace is inconsistent with Article III of the Constitution."
And the legal failings go further, "Lower courts invented offended observer standing" back in the 1970s, the filing said. Under that Lemon test, thousands of lawsuits followed, and that precedent was overturned.
"Acknowledging the role religion played in our country's founding and our system of laws is consistent with practices at the time of the Founding and ratification of the First Amendment. … While that may offend some, the Supreme Court has made it clear: 'offense does not equate to coercion,' and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause."
