Louisiana Ten Commandments law ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court
Louisiana became the first state in the nation to pass the bill requiring public schools and universities to display the Ten Commandments in the 2024 regular legislative session. The law stated that it would be displayed with a large, readable font on an 11-by-14-inch poster or framed document.
'We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit's affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court,' Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement.
'The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws—serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms. I fully support Attorney General Murrill's decision to seek an en banc panel to review the decision,' said Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry.
Timeline of Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law:
June 19, 2024: A bill requiring public schools and universities to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms was passed during the 2024 Regular Legislative Session.
June 24, 2024: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit claiming the law violated students' First Amendment rights. Some religious leaders and activists also voiced opposition to the law.
Aug. 5, 2024: Murrill called for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing it was premature and that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate actual harm.
July 19, 2024: Louisiana agreed to pause implementation of the law until a hearing could be held, initially scheduled for Nov. 15.
Oct. 21, 2024: A hearing debated whether the law should go into effect while its constitutionality is litigated. The preliminary injunction allowed arguments on both sides regarding the posting of the Commandments.
Nov. 12, 2024: A federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional, prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments in schools.
Dec. 11, 2024: Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed an opening brief to defend Louisiana's Ten Commandments law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 23, 2025: Oral arguments held in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to address the state's appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Can public money flow to Catholic charter school? The Supreme Court will decide
US Senator Bill Cassidy take steps to ensure public's trust in vaccines
Supreme Court approves swift deportation Under Trump Policy
Baton Rouge Police Chief shares vision for safer community as crime rate drops
Our Lady of the Lake showcases newest surgical technology
Suspect arrested, accused of shooting man after an argument in Baton Rouge
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a minute ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the U.S. after a previous migrant deal with the U.K. collapsed
KIGALI, Rwanda — Rwanda on Tuesday became the third African nation to agree to accept deportees from the United States under the Trump administration's plans to send migrants to countries they have no ties with to get them off American soil. Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S., with 'the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement' under the agreement. Makolo didn't provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out. The U.S. sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees' home countries refused to take them back. The U.S. has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Trump's plans to expel people who he says entered the U.S. illegally and are 'the worst of the worst.' Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the U.K. to accept migrants who had arrived in the U.K. to seek asylum. Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there. The contentious agreement was criticized by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain's new Labour government took over. Britain's Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations. They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out. South Sudan, which is tipping toward civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is. The U.S. also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time. A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy, and the king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned. Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the U.S. Rwanda, a relatively small country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed over 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under longtime President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Kagame, who has been president for 25 years. Government spokesperson Makolo said the agreement with the U.S. was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because 'our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.' 'Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,' she said. There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees. Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said 'appeasing President Trump pays.' 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said. The U.K. government estimated that its failed migration deal with Rwanda cost around $900 million in public money, including approximately $300 million in payments to Rwanda, which said it was not obligated to refund the money when the agreement fell apart. Ssuuna and Imray write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Cape Town, South Africa.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Brazil Supreme Court orders house arrest for Trump ally Bolsonaro
Brazil's Supreme Court on Monday ordered former President Jair Bolsonaro to be placed on house arrest for the remainder of his ongoing trial. Bolsonaro is facing legal repercussions for allegedly staging a coup to upend his 2022 election loss to now-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Justice Alexandre de Moraes accused Bolsonaro, who is an ally of President Trump, of using the social media accounts of his three sons to attack the country's Supreme Federal Court, violating court conditions. 'The covert participation of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, preparing pre-fabricated material for demonstrations and social media, clearly showed that he maintained the illegal conduct of trying to coerce the Supreme Federal Court and obstruct justice, in blatant disrespect for previously imposed precautionary measures,' Moraes wrote, according to People's Dispatch. Over the weekend, the embattled former leader joined demonstrations across Brazil via telephone. His lawyers argued that the words he used did not reference the court or violate standing conditions. They said he told protestors, 'good afternoon, Copacabana, good afternoon my Brazil, a hug to everyone, this is for our freedom,' according to The Associated Press. The State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs backed Bolsonaro in a post on social platform X, condemning Moraes newest order. 'Putting even more restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro's ability to defend himself in public is not a public service. Let Bolsonaro speak!' the bureau wrote. Their statement follows Trump's decision to impose a 50 percent tariff on Brazil and sanctioning of Moraes last week, after the president called the trial a ' witch hunt.' Despite rebukes from the Trump administration, the Brazilian justice has pressed ahead. In his opinion Monday, Moraes alleged Bolsonaro used social media and contacted other defendants despite outlined restrictions writing that 'harsher measures' were needed to dial back the former president. 'As with any precautionary measure imposed by the judiciary, restrictions on the use of social media cannot be circumvented by illicit schemes that, through 'digital militias,' political supporters, or other defendants, continue to propagate the same unlawful act,' the judge wrote.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
India's top court to hear Kashmir statehood plea
India's top court will hear a plea for the restoration of Kashmir's federal statehood later this week, court officials said Tuesday, as the region marked six years under direct rule from New Delhi. The hearing, scheduled for August 8 in the Supreme Court, follows an application filed by two residents of the Muslim-majority territory, where a separatist insurgency has raged for years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government in August 2019 revoked Kashmir's limited autonomy and brought it directly under federal control. The move was accompanied by mass arrests and a communications blackout that ran for months as India bolstered its armed forces in the region to contain protests. The removal of Article 370 of the constitution, which enshrined the Indian-administered region's special status, was challenged by Kashmir's pro-India political parties, the local Bar Association and individual litigants. The Supreme Court in December 2023 upheld removing the region's autonomy but called for Jammu and Kashmir, as the Delhi-administered area is known, to be restored to statehood and put on a par with any other Indian federal state "at the earliest and as soon as possible". "We have moved an application seeking a definitive timeline for the restoration of statehood," said the petitioners' lawyer, Soayib Qureshi. "It has been quite some time since the court asked for it and elections have also been successfully held." Last November, Kashmir elected its first government since it was brought under New Delhi's direct control, as voters backed opposition parties to lead its regional assembly. But the local government has limited powers and the territory continues to be for all practical purposes governed by a New Delhi-appointed administrator. Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan since the neighbours were granted independence from British rule and partitioned in 1947. Indian security forces were deployed in force in the Himalayan territory on Tuesday, eyeing protests demanding the restoration of its special status. sai/pjm/mtp Solve the daily Crossword
