Stone v. Graham
The Supreme Court summarily struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom, ruling without full briefing or argument that the law had no real secular purpose.
The decision reinforced that government-mandated religious displays in public schools violate the separation of church and state, even when funded by private donations and paired with a stated secular justification.
“The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature.”
The Court's central reason for finding the law had no secular purpose.
How it got here: A Kentucky trial court and an evenly divided Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the law; the challengers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to summarily reverse without full briefing.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Kentucky passed a law requiring a privately-funded copy of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public elementary and secondary school classroom, with a small notation calling it part of the secular legal history of Western civilization. A group of parents and students sued, arguing the law violated the First Amendment's protections against government establishment of religion.
The question before the Court
Could Kentucky require public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments on every classroom wall?
Why it matters
Public schools nationwide cannot post religious texts like the Ten Commandments in classrooms simply by attaching a secular-sounding label, even if private money pays for the displays. The ruling gave parents, students, and school boards a clear precedent to challenge similar religious-display mandates in other states.
What changes now
Because this was a final merits ruling made through summary reversal rather than a full argued case, the Kentucky law was struck down immediately and could not be enforced. The decision became a lasting precedent cited in later disputes over religious displays in public schools and government buildings, though the Court did not address displays outside the classroom setting.
What this does not decide
The Court's ruling was limited to mandatory postings in public school classrooms aimed at students; it did not address whether the Ten Commandments could be part of a broader academic curriculum on history, ethics, or comparative religion, or whether displays in non-school government settings were constitutional.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Rehnquist
“With no support beyond its own ipse dixit, the Court concludes that the Kentucky statute involved in this case "has no secular legislative purpose,"”Rehnquist's objection that the majority rejected the legislature's stated purpose without adequate justification.
Justice Rehnquist argued the Court had no basis for rejecting Kentucky's stated secular purpose, since courts traditionally defer to a legislature's articulated reasons for a law. He noted the trial court had found the legislature genuinely believed in a secular purpose, and that the Ten Commandments' historical influence on Western legal codes was itself a legitimate secular reason for the display, distinguishing this case from Abington School District v. Schempp.
Dissent — Justice Stewart
Justice Stewart dissented from the summary reversal itself, saying the Kentucky courts appeared to have applied the correct constitutional standards and that the case did not warrant being decided without full briefing or oral argument.
Dissent — Unsigned
The Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun dissented from the summary disposition, saying they would have granted certiorari and given the case full, plenary consideration rather than deciding it summarily.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the three-part Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, which asks whether a law has a secular purpose, whether its main effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and whether it excessively entangles government with religion; failing any one part makes the law unconstitutional.
- The Court found that Kentucky's stated secular purpose — calling the Commandments part of the West's legal tradition — was not enough on its own, because courts must look past a legislature's declared purpose to the law's actual religious character.
- Examining the text itself, the Court noted the Commandments' opening provisions deal with religious duties like worshipping God and observing the Sabbath, not just secular rules like bans on stealing or killing, showing the document's core nature is religious.
- Because posting the Commandments on a classroom wall was not tied to any broader curriculum on history, ethics, or comparative religion, the Court concluded its only likely effect was to encourage students to venerate or obey a religious text.
- Having found no genuine secular purpose, the Court held the law failed the first prong of the Lemon test and therefore violated the Establishment Clause without needing to examine the other two prongs.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602)
The Court applied Lemon's three-part test as the controlling standard for judging the Kentucky law.
Reaffirms Abington School District v. Schempp (374 U.S. 203)
The Court relied on Schempp's reasoning that stated secular purposes don't excuse religious school practices.