Stone v. Graham
Headline: Court strikes down Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments posted in every public school classroom, finding the displays religious with no secular purpose and blocking their compulsory placement in schools.
Holding:
- Blocks Kentucky from requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.
- Private fundraising and passive posting do not avoid unconstitutional state endorsement.
- Public schools must not display the Ten Commandments under this statute.
Summary
Background
A Kentucky law required a copy of the Ten Commandments, bought with private donations, to be displayed on the wall of every public elementary and secondary school classroom. The statute specified a 16-by-20 inch plaque and a small printed notation asserting the Commandments’ secular application. Challengers sued, arguing the law violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. State trial court upheld the law; Kentucky’s highest court split evenly. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review and acted per curiam.
Reasoning
The Court applied its three-part test for laws involving religion (a secular purpose, no primary effect of advancing religion, and no excessive entanglement). The majority concluded the posting had no secular legislative purpose because the Ten Commandments are a sacred religious text and displaying them under state authority would tend to induce students to venerate or obey them. The Court relied on earlier decisions finding similar school religious practices unconstitutional and emphasized that posting is not an academic use within curriculum. The Court also said private funding and merely hanging the text do not prevent the display from being official state support, so the statute violated the Establishment Clause.
Real world impact
The ruling forbids Kentucky from requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms as written. Public school students and school officials in Kentucky are directly affected because the statute was declared unconstitutional. The Court noted that even private fundraising and passive display still required state administration and support, so those features did not save the law. Because the decision came as a summary reversal, it was issued quickly without full merits briefing or oral argument.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices dissented, objecting to the summary reversal and arguing the legislature’s stated secular purpose and the text’s historical legal role warranted fuller review and deference.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?