Civil liberties advocates say that ignoring church-state separation in schools not only violates the Constitution by imposing religion on students but also risks exposing young people to harmful stereotypes about gender, race and the LGBTQ+ community. The Bible could be used to teach girls that wives must obey their husbands or to limit girls’ ambitions for their lives, they say. President-elect Donald Trump, however, plans to incorporate prayer into public education, according to his Agenda 47. It’s unclear if the courts will allow schools to implement his policy proposal.
The plaintiffs in Rev. Roake v. Brumley include the Rev. Darcy Roake and her husband, Adrian Van Young. The families represented are of Unitarian Universalist, Christian, Jewish and nonreligious backgrounds. The defendants include Cade Brumley, Louisiana’s state superintendent of education, and several state and local school officials.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“H.B. 71 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased and relieved that the court ruled in our favor,” Roake said in a statement. “As an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.”
Judge John W. DeGravelles found that the law violated the First Amendment along with years of Supreme Court precedent. In 1980, the high court ruled in Stone v. Graham that a Kentucky statute ordering the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause bars the government from “establishing” a religion.
“First, Stone remains good law and is directly on point, and this Court is bound to follow it,” DeGravelles wrote in his opinion. “Second, even putting Stone aside . . . Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that H.B. 71 fails to comply with the Establishment Clause.”
DeGravelles said that requiring the commandments to be posted in all classrooms year-round, regardless of course content or grade level, would make schoolchildren a “captive audience” and coerce them “to participate in a religious exercise.”
Liz Murrill, the state's Republican attorney general, said in a statement: "We strongly disagree with the court's decision and will immediately appeal."
The plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley, who have children in public schools, are represented by the national ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is involved as pro bono counsel.
“Religious freedom — the right to choose one’s faith without pressure — is essential to American democracy,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, in a statement. “Today’s ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiffs’ children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.”
Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement that the ruling will ensure that families, and not politicians, choose how their children engage with religion.
“It should send a strong message to Christian nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation’s public school children,” Laser said. “Not on our watch.”
