The Wall Between Church and State is Crumbling
One Case at a Time
The religious nationalists have been emboldened in the current environment, and their lawyers have been busier than ever.
POSTING TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three cases are of interest. On June 20, 2025 in Roake v. Louisiana, the Fifth circuit court of appeals upheld the district court that found requiring posting of the Ten Commandments in schools is unconstitutional. The three states in the Fifth Circuit are Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi so the ruling applies to them too.
On the same day, Texas Governor Abbot signed a Texas bill requiring posting in schools. Four days later, several ministers for themselves and their children, filed a complaint Alexander v. Morath v. Texas Department of Education in the northern district for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas commissioner of education and related others against the bill (S.B.10). They argued under both the US and the Texas constitutions.
While the Roake decision means it’s already unconstitutional, an interesting sideline is that the fundamentalists push for “parents’ rights” might backfire as parents have rights to prevent their kids from being exposed to and proselytized about a religion they do not agree with. Some of the ministers found the commandment about not coveting your neighbors wife “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s” a statement that people were property and could be enslaved which violated tenants of two of the pastors’ religion.
Another plaintiff said the posting gives the impression that the state has authority over the church which is offensive and that she does not want her children to have to read about and ask what is “adultery” because that is age inappropriate. The Muslim plaintiff of course has many objections, especially about having no other gods.
This matter has already been decided in In Stone v. Graham when the Supreme Court struck down a statute similar to S.B. 10 holding that posting the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 449 U.S. at 41-42. Stone remains binding precedent and that is precisely what the governor is seeking to do – get that overruled. The Supreme Cult has shown in Dobbs that it has no problem overruling decades old precedent. The case was brought by Next Generation Action Network in TX. No new documents have been filed.
Days later, July 2, 2025, another challenge was filed in the western district of Texas that is San Antonio. Rabbi Nathan et al v. Alamo Heights School District et al. The plaintiffs are pastors of a variety of religions, parents and children. The defendant is not the state but the individual school districts. This complaint cited the Roake v. Brumley ruling by the court on 6/20/25 to argue that the law is plainly unconstitutional. ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), and Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) are on the case.
But never say never - since Arkansas is in the Eighth District not the Fifth, on 6/11/25, in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District et al, the ACLU, AU, and FFRF filed to stop the posting of the 10 Commandments there which is to take effect August 5. They asked for a preliminary injunction and await action. The opposition hopes to get a different ruling from the 8th circuit which they then can take to the Supreme Cult.
SCHOOL VOUCHERS
On June 24, 2025, a Franklin County court in Columbus City School Dist v. State of Ohio released a decision on a motion for summary judgement. Plaintiffs including Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding and Vouchers Hurt Ohio, had filed in January 2022 arguing that the voucher program is constitutional under state law and the state constitution. The Ohio Christian Education Network filed for intervention to defend their right to snatch taxpayer dollars as a significant portion of the private schools are religious schools. Churches have been trying to get their sticky fingers on taxpayer dollars in Ohio since 1874 but were soundly rejected back then. The state also filed to dismiss.
After a hearing, the court denied those motions and let the case go forward. The Senate President then filed a motion to quash that was also denied. After discovery, all parties filed for summary judgment.
The findings from the discovery were astounding:
The Columbus City School District with 45,000 students, the majority of whom are economically disadvantaged, got $2,800 core funding v. $40 million to 7,400 voucher kids.
Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, 5,000 students, 99% are disadvantaged, got $1,700 in core funding v. $11 million to 2,000 voucher kids.
Richmond Heights Local School District Board of Education got $1,529 in core funding compared to $675,000 going to 100 vouchers students.
Lima City School District Board of Education has 3,400 students, all economically disadvantaged, and are running at a deficit which $3.5 million was given to 600 voucher students in the district.
Barberton City School District Board of Education has 35,500 kids, 62% of whom are disadvantaged, and has 15-year-old textbooks and crumbling infrastructure yet $440,000 was given to 80 students in voucher schools.
Dayton City School District Board of Education has the same problems as Barberton with 12,000 students, 96% are economically disadvantaged. Yet $16.5 million went to 3,000 kids on vouchers.
They truly have achieved the goal of destroying the public schools – that’s where Arizona is headed.
Private schools got double the funding per pupil than public schools. Of the private schools, 154 relied on vouchers for 75% of their students. Many schools got more than 60% of their funding from vouchers. The schools stopped spending their own money since they are getting so much from the state.
The plaintiffs had several innovative arguments based on their state constitution that unfortunately wouldn’t help us much. Their evidence proved that the constitution was violated by creating a system of private schools funded by the state in violation of the state constitution and the summary judgment motion was granted on that count for the plaintiffs.
On the second count, failure to secure a thorough and efficient common public schools, the court held that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the voucher program violates the constitution so plaintiffs’ motion on that was granted.
Plaintiffs lost on the segregation count though they showed clearly by the numbers that the vouchers were aiding discrimination, with some schools even excluding kids depending on criminal justice system involvement as a proxy for race – as the court said. But it has been tougher to win these cases for a while now and plaintiffs had to show intent with actual people who were rejected from the schools. They did not so lost that argument.
On the fourth count of unconstitutional state funding of religious schools, plaintiffs showed the private, religious schools got a billion in public school funds. As the judge said, nothing prevents those schools from using the money for religious education or materials or personal gain as we have seen here.
The court found that voucher funds were school funds by cleverly differentiating the religion cases (Trinity, Espinoza, Carson, and Rosenberger). The constitution prohibits money to any sect, not just religious sects, so it was unconstitutional because it does not prohibit participation based on religious viewpoint but on any “sect.” I got a kick out of that. It’s also not a school choice issue as the schools can accept or reject so they are making the choice not the parents – pretty clever – so judgment went to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also argued it violated the constitution because of the per pupil funding disparity. Public schools got from $1,500 to $5,000 per pupil. Private schools got $6,166 in K-8 and $8,408 in 9-12. Unfortunately they did not provide a student who was denied by a voucher school so were denied summary judgment on that, which I found not justified.
The program has been 28 years on and was allowed to continue operating as the state swiftly appeals.
STATE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO OUT OF STATE CHURCHES?
On July 9, 2025 in a case brought by the ACLU and American Humanist Association by the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the court ruled that to grant West Virginia tax dollars to an out-of-state Catholic institution violates West Virginia constitution.
The Water development authority gave a $5 million in a grant to the College of St. Joseph the Worker in Steubenville, OH to expand operations into West Virginia. To get into the trades program, students had to have a degree in Catholic studies because that is the only degree conferred by the school. The Court ruled the WV Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for religious education and advocacy.
If West Virginia can get it, why can’t Arizona?
CHURCHES HAWKING CANDIDATES
National Religious Broadcasters and two churches in Texas filed a suit on August 28, 2024 against the IRS objecting to the Johnson Amendment that prohibits 501 (c)3 organizations from campaigning for a political candidate. They argued that the Johnson Amendment facially and as applied violates their First Amendment rights to political speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
They argued that endorsing someone from the pulpit is not “participation” in any campaign but instead religious guidance on the impact of faith in political choices. They argued that is how the Johnson Amendment has been interpreted in practice.
Unfortunately, that is true. Rarely did the IRS ever do anything about the many church violations. This exemption they seek would apply only to churches not other non-profits.
Back in 2022, the Department of Justice opposed it. But things have changed. Elections have consequences. So now the tax division of the DOJ agrees and has signed a consent decree that was filed on July 7, 2025 in the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.
On July 10, 2025, AU filed a motion to intervene which is of course opposed by both parties. In the alternative, they asked to be allowed to file an amicus brief to ensure that religious and non-religious organizations receive equal treatment.
Their argument is that the purpose of the law is to prevent the corrosive impact of money and political corruption in churches and that the inability of the organization to campaign in an election is a tradeoff for the benefit of having a tax exemption. Churches and other non-profits can still preach all they like about values and morals and principles and policies, so the alleged “moral teachings” are not hindered in the least. They just can’t name the candidate and tell their parishioners to vote for X.
We await the decision on the motion to intervene and defend our rights in what has become collusion between the government and churches.
TEACHING FANTASY AND FRAUD
AU and the Appleseed Legal Center in Oklahoma filed Rev. Randall v. State Department of Education in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to stop the implementation of the Academic Standards for Social Studies that requires bible stories to be taught to 1st and 2nd graders, presents proven fraudulent statements about the 2020 presidential election, says that COVID was from a Chinese lab and other such in inaccurate or questioned information. It also promotes one particular religious belief.
The several reasons to toss this out are that there was a lack of notice, it violated the open meetings law in its adoption, it violates statutes that require accuracy and age-appropriate materials in schools, and its teaching religion. Among the plaintiffs are two Native Americans who were victims of forced proselytization and cultural genocide in the boarding schools in Oklahoma who said it would be a repeat of that shameful time.
The state wants to teach the bible as historical which scholarly consensus disagrees with. They want to teach that religion is the basis for American government which historians disagree with. The curricula is designed to promote a specific brand of Christianity.
The plaintiffs filed an application for stay of implementation of standards; a brief for original jurisdiction, and a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and/or a writ of mandamus to keep 2019 standards till this is over. Awaiting decision.
We anticipated this because of the current administration and Project 2025. While their lawyers may be wrong on history and science, they are not stupid. Every move has to be fought. That takes a lot of time and money. We are doing this here in Arizona too, but our tiny legal department has one pro bono lawyer against 600 for the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom.
We need your help.
My term on the board is done in September 2026 and I intend to return to being a volunteer rather than director of the legal department. We need to hire someone who can do this as a full-time job.
Please contribute if you can and designate your donation for the legal department.
Thanks.
Dianne Post, Secular AZ Legal Director
 | A guest post by
|