Arkansas A.G. Pushes Back Against Lawsuit Over Ten Commandments Monument

Religious Freedom, Ten Commandments Monument, ,
Above: Former Sen. Jason Rapert and then-Rep. Kim Hammer unveil Arkansas’ monument commemorating the Ten Commandments in this file photo from 2018. Atheist organizations filed a lawsuit to have the monument removed, but the case has remained in limbo for seven years.

Attorney General Tim Griffin’s legal team continues to stand up for Arkansas’ monument of the Ten Commandments in court.

In 2015, the Arkansas Legislature authorized a privately funded monument of the Ten Commandments on the Arkansas Capitol Building grounds. The monument is identical to one the U.S. Supreme Court ruled constitutional at the capitol building in Texas.

It was unveiled in 2018, but atheist groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Satanic Temple quickly filed a federal lawsuit to have the monument removed. The case has been in legal limbo ever since.

Earlier this month the groups suing the state filed a notice alleging that federal court rulings over Ten Commandments displays in Louisiana support their case against Arkansas’ monument.

However, Attorney General Tim Griffin’s team fired back in court, pointing out the lawsuit in Louisiana is different from the situation in Arkansas and defending the Ten Commandments’ longstanding history and tradition in our country.

As we have said many times, historians have long recognized the Ten Commandments as one of the earliest examples of the rule of law in human history, and they have helped shape philosophy and laws in countries around the world.

That’s why the Ten Commandments traditionally have appeared in artwork at courthouses and similar locations.

Arkansas’ Ten Commandments monument commemorates their cultural and historical legacy. With that in mind, we believe our federal courts eventually will resolve this lawsuit and uphold Arkansas’ Ten Commandments monument as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

IRS Finally Agrees Churches, Pastors Can Engage in Political Speech

Religious Freedom, , ,

On Monday the IRS filed a motion in federal court acknowledging that churches and ministers are free to address social and political issues from a biblical point of view.

The motion helps bring clarity to the First Amendment freedoms of pastors and churches.

Many people believe state and federal law prevents churches and pastors from addressing “politics,” but churches and ministers actually have always had tremendous leeway to talk about legislation, campaign issues, and even candidates.

Churches and ministers are free to address social and moral issues — even if some people consider those issues “political.”

That means they are free to stand up against abortion, promote biblical marriage, encourage responsible citizenship, support laws that protect children from sex-change procedures, and so forth. Churches can spend an insubstantial amount of money lobbying for or against legislation or ballot issues as well.

Historically, churches have hosted voter registration drives. They have been free to hold candidate forums and educate voters about candidates and elections.

Legal experts generally have agreed the IRS rules — also known as the Johnson Amendment — let ministers support or oppose candidates.

However, on Monday the IRS filed a court motion reinforcing that churches have tremendous leeway when it comes to free speech and religious liberty. The motion says,

When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. . . . Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.

The IRS says this is in keeping with its traditional interpretation of federal tax rules governing churches.

Our friends at Liberty Counsel say this means that “if a house of worship endorsed a candidate to its congregants, the agency would view that not as campaigning but as a private matter, like ‘a family discussion concerning candidates.'”

All of this underscores that churches and ministers have tremendous freedom when it comes to talking about morality, social issues, candidates, and political campaigns.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

A.G., School Districts Push Back Against Lawsuit Over Ten Commandments Displays

Religious Freedom, ,

Last week, public school districts and the Arkansas Attorney General’s office asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit over a measure placing copies of the Ten Commandments in Arkansas’ public schools and buildings.

Act 573 of 2025 by Sen. Jim Dotson (R — Bentonville) and Rep. Alyssa Brown (R — Heber Springs) requires privately-funded copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and other public buildings in Arkansas.

The measure received strong support in the Arkansas Legislature earlier this year, and Act 573 is slated to take effect in August.

However, in an effort to block Act 573, lawyers from the ACLU and a group of atheist organizations filed a federal lawsuit against four public school districts:

  • The Fayetteville School District
  • The Springdale School District
  • The Bentonville School District
  • The Siloam Springs School District

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has intervened in the case as well, and his office is defending Act 573.

Last Wednesday, lawyers for the school districts and the A.G.’s office asked U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks to dismiss the case.

The school districts argue the plaintiffs lack standing to sue the school districts and that the case is premature.

In a separate brief, Attorney General Griffin’s office argued Act 573 is constitutional because “the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the Ten Commandments have enormous historical significance ‘in America’s heritage.'” Attorneys for the A.G.’s office also argued the case is premature and should be dismissed.

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states are free to honor and recognize documents or symbols that are important to our nation’s history — like the Ten Commandments or the national motto.

The Ten Commandments are one of the earliest examples of the rule of law, and they have had a profound impact in shaping our society and our government.

During her testimony in support of Act 573 last April, Rep. Alyssa Brown noted that the U.S. Supreme Court uses a “longstanding history and tradition test” to decide if it is constitutional to display something like a copy of the Ten Commandments. Rep. Brown said, “The Ten Commandments without a doubt will pass this longstanding history and tradition test.”

We believe our federal courts ultimately will agree and uphold Act 573 as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE