Judge blocks Arkansas Ten Commandments law
Why it matters: Nearly 500,000 students will return to Arkansas classrooms this month.
Some supporters see the Ten Commandments as a historical document that helped shape U.S. law, but the plaintiffs argue that displaying the document in public schools would infringe on their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
State of play: Arkansas Act 573, passed by the state Legislature this year and signed into law by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, would require that every "public institution of higher education and elementary and secondary school library and classroom in the state" prominently display a copy of the "historical representation of the Ten Commandments."
The posters were to be at least 16 inches by 20 inches and in a legible typeface.
All copies were to be donated or purchased through private funds, but if a donated copy didn't meet the requirements, the school could replace it using public funds.
The big picture: In his ruling, U.S. Western District of Arkansas Judge Timothy Brooks cited similar laws in nearby Louisiana and Texas. The Louisiana law has been declared unconstitutional, and the Texas law is being challenged, though a ruling hasn't yet been declared.
Oklahoma's state superintendent issued guidelines last year that every classroom have a copy of the Bible and the Ten Commandments and that teachers should include the documents in the curriculum. The guidance is being challenged.
At least 15 other states had proposed some form of the law as of February.
What they're saying: "Forty-five years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Ten Commandments law nearly identical to the one the Arkansas General Assembly passed earlier this year. That precedent remains binding on this Court and renders Arkansas Act 573 plainly unconstitutional," Judge Brooks wrote in the ruling.
"Why would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law? Most likely because the State is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms."
The other side: "In Arkansas, we do in fact believe that murder is wrong and stealing is bad. It is entirely appropriate to display the Ten Commandments — the basis of all Western law and morality — as a reminder to students, state employees, and every Arkansan who enters a government building," Sanders said in a statement emailed to Axios.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Arkansas Governor Seeks to Block Health Insurance Rate Hikes
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she would oppose premium increases from health insurers including Centene Corp., an early sign of the political maneuvering that's likely to follow instability in insurance markets. Some companies are requesting average rate increases of more than 50%, according to the Arkansas Insurance Department.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts
Texas Republicans' move to redraw their congressional map mid-decade and Democrats' retaliatory redistricting efforts have captured national attention for a very simple reason: How House districts are drawn can shape American politics for years. Gerrymandering generally reduces the number of competitive races, and it can lock in nearly immovable advantages for one party or another. Under the new map proposed in Texas, no seat's presidential vote would have been decided by single digits in 2024, and Republicans would have a path to pad their narrow congressional majority in the 2026 midterm elections. This means more people could reside in congressional districts under solid control of one party. NBC News analyzed how the question of who draws the maps — and how they do it — can shape elections for years afterward. The difference between safe seats and competitive districts Who draws district lines can make the difference between contested general elections in a state in November and elections that are barely more than formalities. NBC News analyzed every House race in the country from 2012 to 2020, the last full 10-year redistricting cycle, based on how each district was drawn. In states where state legislators drew the maps, single-digit races (elections in which the winners won by less than 10 percentage points) were rarest. Only 10.7% of House races fell into that competitive category. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve gerrymandering. For one thing, voters of both parties have increasingly clustered in recent years, leaving fewer places around the country that are politically divided. Still, gerrymandering does play a significant role. When commissions or state or federal courts drew the lines last decade, the rate of competitive elections jumped, though safe seats are still overwhelmingly likely. Competitive elections were especially prevalent in states with court-drawn districts: 18.1% of races in those states had single-digit margins from 2012 through 2020. A look at Pennsylvania, whose legislative-drawn map was thrown out and replaced in 2018 by the state Supreme Court, illustrates the dramatic change that can come based on who draws congressional lines. The same state with the same voters living in the same places suddenly had many more competitive elections. From 2012 through 2016, just three of Pennsylvania's 54 House general elections under the initial map had single-digit margins. After the state Supreme Court threw out the map and imposed a new one, the number of battleground races bumped up. Eight of 36 House races had single-digit margins in 2018 and 2020. Meanwhile, ahead of the 2026 midterms, The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates 40 House districts as toss-ups or slightly leaning toward one party. More than half (23) of those 40 competitive districts are in states where commissions or courts drew the maps. How a state's partisanship compares with whom it sends to Congress The power of the redistricting process can bend a state's representation in Congress away from its overall partisanship, with wide differences between the statewide vote in some states and the makeup of their House delegations. Take Illinois, for example, where Donald Trump got 44% of the vote in 2024. Republicans hold only three of the state's 17 seats in Congress, or 18%. (NBC News is looking at presidential data instead of House data here because some races are uncontested.) And even though Trump got 38% of the vote in California last year, Republicans hold only 17% — that's nine seats — of the state's 52 congressional districts. On the other side of the ledger, Trump got 58% support in South Carolina last year, and 86% of the state's House delegation is Republican. In North Carolina, 51% voted for Trump last year, and Republicans have 71% of the delegation. The comparison between House seats and presidential election performance isn't perfect. But it demonstrates that how district lines are drawn can generate different results from what statewide results might suggest. Right in the middle of the chart is Virginia. Its 11 congressional districts split 6-5 for Democrats, meaning Republicans hold nearly 46% of the state's seats in Congress, and Trump won 46% of the vote in Virginia last year. Also, just because a state's maps favor one party compared with the statewide results after one election doesn't mean the redistricting process was biased. Tightly divided Pennsylvania has seven Democrats and 10 Republicans in Congress, and three GOP-held districts are rated as toss-up or lean-Republican races in 2026, according to the Cook Political Report. Each state charts its own course Since each state is responsible for handling its own redistricting, the process is different depending on where you look, giving immense power to different institutions state by state. In 27 states, legislatures approved the maps. In seven, independent commissions approved them, seven had court-approved maps, two had political commissions, and one state's maps were approved by a backup commission, according to data from Loyola Law School. (The six states that elect only one person to the House don't draw new congressional maps.) Loyola Law School's " All About Redistricting" website defines politician commissions as panels elected officials can serve on as members. The website defines backup commissions as backup procedures if legislatures can't agree on new lines.
