Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry.
Advertisement
The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.
Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.
Advertisement
In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who said in a post on the social platform X on Friday evening that he plans to sign the bill into law. If that happens, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Advertisement 3 Rhode Island's state House approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons. AP Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. Advertisement The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Advertisement Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. 3 Two men inspected AR-10s for sale at the Belle-Clair Fairgrounds & Expo Center Gun Show in Belleville, Ill. REUTERS Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. 'I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more,' she said. 'And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.' Advertisement Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the US. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. 'We are throwing away money on this,' he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. 3 A crowd of gun-rights advocates filled the State House rotunda in Rhode Island in March to protest a proposed ban on the manufacture and sale of assault-style weapons. David DelPoio/The Providence Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Advertisement Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. Advertisement The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.'
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump Mobile, gender care and the champion Panthers: The week in review
Floods ravage Texas, Appalachians Torrential rain and flash flooding in Texas and parts of West Virginia trapped drivers, swept vehicles away and pulled homes off their foundations, leaving as many as 20 people dead and communities struggling to recover. Thunderstorms over San Antonio dropped nearly 10 inches of rain in a matter of hours, more that double the amount of rain the area typically gets in all of June. Up to 4 inches drenched the Appalachian region, overwhelming creeks and waterways. 'It happened so quickly,' said Lou Vargo, Ohio County's emergency management director. "I've been doing this for 35 years. … I've never seen anything like this.' Court upholds gender care ban The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the transgender rights movement and a victory to the Trump administration when it upheld a Tennessee law barring gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling fell along ideological lines as the court's six conservative justices ruled in favor of the ban and the three liberals dissented. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the decision was a victory 'in defense of America's children'; Kimberly Inez McGuire, head of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, said the court chose 'cruelty over care.' Trump Mobile answers the call Yet another enterprise is getting the Trump name. Trump Mobile, a new cellular service, will offer the 5G '47 Plan' for $47.45 a month (Donald Trump is the nation's 47th and 45th president) and its own phone, the T1 Phone, the Trump Organization announced. 'Trump Mobile is going to change the game,' said Donald Trump Jr., who runs the president's conglomerate with his brother Eric. The gold-colored phone will retail for $499. Of course that's not the only venture in the Trump orbit: There's Truth Social and the crypto company World Liberty Financial, plus Trump Bibles, watches, sneakers and guitars. Steve Carell's advice to grads: 'Just dance' When Steve Carell is your commencement speaker, you should be ready for anything. The actor, who was presented with an honorary degree from Northwestern University before he spoke to its graduates, briefly turned the ceremony into a dance party as he bolted off the stage and into the crowd of delighted grads to 'That's Not My Name' by The Ting Tings. 'That was as invigorating as it was disturbing,' he told them afterward. His speech was not without some sage advice: 'Remember to laugh when you have the opportunity and to cry when necessary,' he said. And, 'just dance sometimes.' Twice is nice for the Florida Panthers Who said the Sunshine State is no place for hockey? The Florida Panthers netted their second straight Stanley Cup − and denied the Edmonton Oilers a second straight time − with a 5-1 romp in front of the home crowd in Game 6 behind a record-tying four goals from winger Sam Reinhart. The Cats join their brethren the Tampa Bay Lightning, who won back-to-back Cups in 2020 and 2021. As for Edmonton, falling short again was especially stinging: The last Canadian team to take home the Stanley Cup was the Montreal Canadiens in 1993. − Compiled and written by Robert Abitbol, USA TODAY copy chief
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
