On Tuesday, the full, 17-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard consolidated oral arguments in a crucial case that is all but guaranteed to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The predictable controversy surrounding the litigation, which involves similar but distinct mandatory Ten Commandments display laws arising out of Texas and Louisiana, is revealing as to just how far America has fallen from its Founders’ vision.

In 2024, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed into law a bill requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom—from kindergarten through the university level—throughout the state. As Landry explained at the time, “If you want to respect the rule of law, you gotta start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

Last year, the Lone Star State followed by passing a nearly identical statute. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who as Texas attorney general in 2005 successfully defended a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Supreme Court, echoed Landry in signing Texas’ bill: “Faith and freedom are the foundation of our nation.”

Aggrieved liberals and secularists immediately filed First Amendment lawsuits, and district court judges promptly enjoined enforcement in both states. The question now pending before the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, where I once served as a law clerk, is whether the Ten Commandments laws may once again be enforced so that the Decalogue can hang on all classroom walls throughout Texas and Louisiana.

Let’s start with first principles. The first clause of the First Amendment, widely known as the establishment clause, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The two relevant words in the Establishment Clause are “Congress” and “establishment.”

The word “Congress” is relevant because the establishment clause was unambiguously intended only to apply to Congress—and, by extension, the federal government at large.

As Justice Clarence Thomas and others have persuasively argued, the original understanding of the clause was to prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion so that the states may do so themselves—consistent, of course, with prevailing free exercise protections and the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the Constitution. From the Founders’ perspective, the Establishment Clause was a necessary federalism provision for a fledgling, religiously pluralistic republic.

The word “establishment” is relevant because it can only mean what the Founders meant: a literal national established church, such as the Church of England.

Generations of Americans have been taught that the First Amendment secures the “separation of church and state,” but that pernicious phrase is nowhere to be found in the amendment’s actual text. Instead, the notion of a “wall of separation between Church & State” has its origins in a pithy 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

As Justice William Rehnquist explained in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), “Thomas Jefferson was … in France at the time … the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.”

In reality, Jefferson’s “separation” language didn’t take hold until a terrible 1947 Supreme Court decision called Everson v. Board of Education, which for the first time undermined both “Congress” and “establishment” by adopting Jefferson’s insidious language and then “incorporating” it to the states as well.

The result has been nearly eight decades of destructive constitutional inversion and a prolonged moral assault on America’s biblical inheritance throughout our public squares.

In a law review article published last summer, my coauthors and I called for the court to formally overturn Everson and end our failed national experiment in “separationism.”

None of this is even necessary to decide the 5th Circuit case. The United States was founded on ecumenical biblical principles, and the Ten Commandments—the wellspring of so much of Western morality—embody that ecumenicism.

Introduced to the world by Judaism and spread throughout the world by Christianity, the Ten Commandments are the shared inheritance of Jews and Christians of all stripes—Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox alike.

The Supreme Court itself famously features a frieze of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments tablets. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the court to deny to Texas and Louisiana the ability to do that which it does itself. Sectarian public displays perhaps raise other concerns, but the Ten Commandments simply do not.

On the very same day in 2005 that Abbott and then-Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz successfully defended the Texas State Capitol grounds Ten Commandments monument, the court decided a very similar case out of Kentucky that inexplicably went the other way.

For decades, the court has made a muddled hash of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. It’s been trending in the right direction in recent years, and the justices should eventually have an opportunity here for a landmark, clarifying ruling. But for now, the 5th Circuit must do the right thing and side with Texas and Louisiana.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. 

The post Who’s Afraid of the Ten Commandments? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used legislation passed as part of the post-Civil War “Jim Crow” laws Tuesday to justify a Hawaii gun control law. The Supreme Court […]

The post KBJ Defends Jim Crow Law to Justify Anti-2A Government Gun Grabbing appeared first on The Western Journal.

The reasons why women seek abortion have not changed–but society and culture have, according to Emily Berning, president and co-founder of Let Them Live.

Pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood use flashy, professional, and sometimes seductive social graphics and short-form videos to target young women across social media with a pro-abortion messages. If the pro-life movement is going to capture the attention of the next generation, then they must employ a similar strategy, according to Berning.

Today, 76% of Gen Z believes abortion should be legal in almost all cases, according to Pew Research, proving the goal to instill a culture of life in America has yet to be reached.

While the demand for abortion remains, Berning and her team at Let Them Live are filling a practical need for moms considering abortion. The nonprofit, first founded in 2019, provides practical financial support to women considering an abortion.

Let Them Live will, for example, pay an expectant mother’s rent for a year, or take on the woman’s car payment or utility bill while she works to find a job that allows her to be a mother and provider for her child.

Just last year, the group celebrated 1,000 babies saved from abortion.

Berning joins “Problematic Women” to share about the work of Let Them Live and discuss how the next generation views the fight for the unborn.

The post A Last Line of Defense Before Abortion appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Several House Republicans are openly criticizing GOP House leadership after dozens of Republicans voted for a budget amendment Thursday that gave millions to “gender-affirming care” and pro-abortion groups. The so-called […]

The post Dozens of House Republicans Cast Votes That Help Fund 'Gender-Affirming Care' for Kids, Late-Term Abortions appeared first on The Western Journal.