Basically, the Plaintiffs in this case did not want to be subjected to unwanted religious displays against their will just because the State of Texas wanted to foist them on public schools. Read the PDF for this case, parts excerpted below. Also, this is the second time that I, at least, have read of a judge in Texas ruling that the 10 commandments have to come down, but for different school districts. Crazy crook Paxton still using our taxpayer money to try to fight his losing battle (also noting that he is an adulterer-maybe he should give a lesson in classrooms that have the 10 commandments about what that is and how it applies to him as an object lesson) Don’t forget also that the 5th circuit court of appeals found a similar law from Louisiana unconstitutional -Texas is part of the 5th circuit. They are going to have a joint Louisiana/Texas hearing on this in January.AND, note that more school districts in Texas are suing. This one from the summer is filed in the Norther District of TExas and looks like it is suiing for DeSoto ISD, Dallas ISD, Lancaster ISD
Honesty, if you are on the side of trying to force a particular brand of religion on school children in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, you are wrong and you don’t understand “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia has preliminarily enjoined about a dozen Texas school districts, including Conroe and Fort Worth ISDs, from displaying the 10 Commandments. They are to remove "any displays" of the Ten Commandments "presently erected" by Dec. 1
— gwen howerton (@kissphoria.bsky.social) November 18, 2025 at 3:06 PM
[image or embed]
I was looking for a list of exactly which school districts are affected both this one and court order before this. From KSAT (Judge Biery represents the Western District of Texas and so does Judge Garcia. I am guessing that because there were certain school districts in each lawsuit that those are the ones these rulings apply to, but you know good old Crook Paxton wants to threaten anyone who doesn’t put up the posters . Hopefully this does not mean that every dang school district in Texas has to sue, More
Biery’s August ruling blocking the law from taking full effect applied to the following school districts: Alamo Heights, North East, Lackland, Northside, Austin, Lake Travis, Dripping Springs, Houston, Fort Bend, Cypress-Fairbanks and Plano.
The latest lawsuit from the ACLU seeks further action in the following districts: Comal, Georgetown, Conroe, Flour Bluff, Fort Worth, Arlington, McKinney, Frisco, Northwest, Azle, Rockwall, Lovejoy, Mansfield, McAllen.
From the Northern District of Texas lawsuit. Interesting that this version of the 10 commandments differs with the one for Jewish tradition and also shades the Catholic religion.
SENATE BILL 10 OFFICIALLY APPROVES AND PRESCRIBES A SPECIFIC
VERSION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, WHICH MAY NOT ALIGN WITH THE
BELIEFS OF MANY TEXANS
Senate Bill 10 (S.B. 10 is not religiously neutral, as it mandates the display of a specific
version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. This requirement inherently
takes a theological stance on the correct content and meaning of the scripture.
Many Texans, including those who are not religious or who adhere to different faith
traditions, do not subscribe to the specific text or tenets of the Ten Commandments as presented
in S.B. 10. For instance, followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism generally do not consider
the commandments to be part of their belief system, and some Christians, such as Jehovah’s
Witnesses, do not view them as authoritative. Even within faith traditions that recognize the Ten
Commandments, various versions exist depending on denomination or biblical translation.
The version mandated by S.B. 10 mostly aligns with a Protestant rendition but does not
match any version found in the Jewish tradition, notably omitting key language and context from
the Torah. Furthermore, it does not match the version followed by most Catholics, as it includes a
prohibition against “graven images” which could be offensive given the role of iconography in the
Catholic faith.
Given these considerations, the mandatory, religiously preferential displays required by
S.B. 10 do not serve a compelling governmental interest, nor are they narrowly tailored to any
such interest.
