In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky statute that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to hang in every public school classroom in the state. The Court, ruling without oral argument, held that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it had no genuine secular purpose. The decision has shaped how courts evaluate religious displays in public schools for more than four decades, though recent shifts in Establishment Clause doctrine have put its continued force in question.1Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
What the Kentucky Law Required
Kentucky Revised Statute 158.178, passed in 1978, directed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to ensure that a durable copy of the Ten Commandments appeared on a wall in every public elementary and secondary school classroom. Each poster measured sixteen by twenty inches. Public funds could not pay for them; the law instead relied on voluntary private contributions deposited with the State Treasurer.2Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. Kentucky Revised Statute 158.178 – Ten Commandments to Be Displayed
Below the text of the commandments, each poster carried a small-print notation stating that the commandments had been adopted as “the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” The legislature added that line to cast the display as educational rather than devotional.2Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. Kentucky Revised Statute 158.178 – Ten Commandments to Be Displayed
A group of parents led by Sydell Stone sued James Graham, the state Superintendent, to block the law. The Kentucky trial court upheld the statute, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided vote. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and reversed in a per curiam opinion issued November 17, 1980.1Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Why the Court Struck the Law Down
The Court applied the framework from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), under which a challenged statute had to have a secular legislative purpose, a primary effect that neither advanced nor inhibited religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion. A law that failed any one prong was unconstitutional.3Justia. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Kentucky’s law failed the first prong. The Ten Commandments, the Court wrote, are “undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact.” The document does not confine itself to secular matters such as prohibiting murder or theft. It includes explicit religious commands about worshiping God and observing the Sabbath, which makes it religious at its core.4Cornell Law School. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
The disclaimer at the bottom of each poster did not save the statute. The posters were not tied to any curriculum on comparative religion, legal history, or ethics. They simply hung on the wall. “The preeminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments,” the Court concluded, “is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function.”1Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
The private-funding arrangement made no difference either. The Court held that posting the commandments “under the auspices of the legislature” was itself the official state support the Establishment Clause forbids, regardless of who paid for the paper.1Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
The Dissents
Four justices objected, for different reasons. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun did not defend the Kentucky law on its merits; they wanted full briefing and oral argument before the Court decided the case. Justice Stewart argued that the Kentucky courts had applied the correct constitutional standards and that their result did not deserve summary reversal.1Justia. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Justice Rehnquist wrote the only full dissent. He called the decision a “cavalier summary reversal, without benefit of oral argument or briefs on the merits, of the highest court of Kentucky.” In his view, courts should accept a legislature’s stated purpose for a law rather than second-guess it. If Kentucky said the commandments had secular value as a foundation of Western legal systems, the Court should have credited that claim. He also stressed that the posters were passive displays paid for privately, and he treated the disclaimer and funding restriction as good-faith efforts to stay within constitutional lines.4Cornell Law School. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
How Later Ten Commandments Cases Applied Stone
Twenty-five years later, the Court decided two Ten Commandments cases on the same day in June 2005 and reached opposite results.
In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, the Court struck down courthouse displays that two Kentucky counties had posted, then twice revised to add other historical documents after lawsuits were filed. The Court found the revision history revealed a “predominantly religious purpose” that additions could not erase. It cited Stone for the principle that the commandments are “undeniably a sacred text” and that legislative relabeling cannot change that fact.5Justia. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
In Van Orden v. Perry, the Court upheld a six-foot granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds, surrounded by dozens of other monuments and markers. The plurality found the Lemon test unhelpful for evaluating that kind of passive monument and looked instead to its context and the country’s history of acknowledging religion in public life. Justice Breyer, casting the fifth vote, emphasized that the monument had gone unchallenged for forty years.6Justia. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
The pairing showed that setting and purpose could decide the outcome. A standalone classroom display posted with a religious motive looked like the posters in Stone and would likely fall. A long-standing monument among many on public grounds could survive.
Does Stone v. Graham Still Control?
The framework Stone relied on no longer exists. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), a case involving a high school football coach who prayed on the field after games, the Supreme Court formally abandoned the Lemon test. The majority said Lemon and the related endorsement test had “invited chaos” in lower courts and created a “minefield” for lawmakers. Establishment Clause challenges must now be evaluated by “reference to historical practices and understandings” rather than by analyzing a law’s purpose, effects, and entanglement with religion.
Stone has not been overruled, and its holding remains on the books. But courts evaluating classroom religious displays today would not apply Lemon’s secular-purpose requirement. They would ask instead whether the practice fits historical traditions surrounding the Establishment Clause at the founding.
Louisiana is now testing that question directly. In 2024, the state enacted a law nearly identical to Kentucky’s, requiring every public school classroom to display a poster of the Ten Commandments at least eleven by fourteen inches, with the text as the central focus. Like the Kentucky law, it bars public spending on the displays and relies on donated posters or funds.7Louisiana State Legislature. 2024 Regular Session House Bill No. 71
The Louisiana legislature cited Van Orden and other cases where religious displays survived, and it declared its intent to continue “the rich tradition” of displaying foundational documents in schools. A federal district court initially blocked the law, but in February 2025 the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted that injunction, ruling that the case needed more factual development before courts could assess how the commandments would appear in classrooms and how teachers might use them.
Whether Stone v. Graham keeps religious texts off classroom walls now depends on how courts applying the “historical practices” standard treat facts nearly identical to the ones the 1980 Court reviewed. If they reach a different answer, the precedent could quietly lose force without ever being formally overruled.