HOUSTON – A Harris County judge on Friday declined to issue an emergency order blocking Texas’ new requirement that public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments, keeping the law in place for now as a lawsuit filed by three Houston-area mothers moves toward a preliminary injunction hearing expected later this month.
Recommended Videos
Supporters of the mandate immediately hailed the ruling as a win. One backer said they were “grateful for the court’s decision today declining to block the Texas 10 Commandment Law,” arguing the display is about “acknowledging our nation’s history” and “legal heritage,” not forcing students to adopt religious beliefs.
But the plaintiffs, who sued under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said the court’s refusal to grant a temporary restraining order does not resolve the central legal question: whether Texas Education Code § 1.0041 unlawfully burdens religious exercise and violates a voter-approved parental rights amendment.
“We asked for emergency relief. We did not get it,” said Meagan Hassan, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “That ruling does not resolve the legal question at the heart of this case.”
The lawsuit — Emily Roth, et al. v. The State of Texas, et al. — was filed July 30 by Emily Roth, Dr. Audrey Rosa Nath, and Sanjam Kaur Sohal against the State of Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath, Houston ISD, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD and Spring Branch ISD. The plaintiffs say they are not bringing a federal claim, focusing instead on state law protections.
As the case proceeds, both sides are emphasizing what the mandate means for students returning to school next week across the Houston area.
Roth, the lead plaintiff, said the issue is not religion itself but the state choosing a religious text for public classrooms. “This case is not against religion,” Roth said. “It is against the state deciding whose religion belongs in a public school classroom, and deciding it without asking one parent in Texas.”
Supporters counter that students are not being asked to participate in any religious practice. “No student is required to pray. No student required to profess faith. No student to agree with the Ten Commandments,” the supporter said, insisting that “seeing something is not the same as being coerced to believe something” and that “exposure is not coercion.”
Hassan argued the plaintiffs’ legal challenge is straightforward and rooted in state statutes and promises to voters. She said the state has told Texans “the government would not come between them and their faith,” but that the mandate places a state-selected religious message into every classroom.
Backers of the law, however, said the Ten Commandments’ influence extends beyond religious doctrine and into the foundations of Western legal tradition. In remarks after the ruling, a supporter argued the display is meant to recognize history, describing the Ten Commandments as part of the background of American law and saying the state should not have to “erase history because it also has a religious flavor to it.”
The plaintiffs say the postings carry a different message for children — particularly those who do not share the underlying religious tradition. Roth said that even if some people view the Ten Commandments as universal moral concepts, the posters raise questions for students about identity and belonging in a state-run classroom. “While she’s working out what the poster means, she’s also working out something else: whose text this is, and that it is not ours,” Roth said.
Supporters reject the idea that the postings substantially burden anyone’s religious exercise, which is the legal standard at issue under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The supporter criticized what they described as the lawsuit’s theory that the mere presence of the display creates an unlawful burden, arguing instead that religious liberty protections are designed to prevent government coercion — not remove all religious references from public spaces.
The two sides also clash over how the recently approved parental rights amendment applies in public schools. The plaintiffs argue the mandate undermines parents’ authority over religious upbringing and imposes a state decision without parental input. Supporters respond that parental rights do not amount to “a constitutional veto over what every other child may encounter in a public school classroom,” and said those rights belong to all parents — including families who support the displays.
For now, the denial of the temporary restraining order leaves the Ten Commandments mandate in effect while the case continues. Supporters said the next major step will be a preliminary injunction hearing, expected later in August, where a judge could decide whether the law should be blocked while litigation plays out.
The plaintiffs’ children attend three different Houston-area districts. The children are not identified by name, and the plaintiffs have asked that the children and their schools not be sought or published.