Opinion: Church-State Separation Remains a Vital Safeguard for All Americans
OPINION — A recent federal appeals court ruling upholding a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms has renewed a foundational debate over the separation of church and state — one that carries personal and historical weight for many Americans, including those with deeply diverse religious roots.
Why It Matters
The question of where government ends and religion begins touches every American family, regardless of faith tradition. For residents of Wyoming and across the Mountain West — home to communities ranging from devout evangelical Christians to Indigenous peoples, Latter-day Saints, and those with no religious affiliation — the boundaries set by the First Amendment shape daily life in schools, courthouses, and public spaces.
A ruling that redefines those boundaries in one state can set legal precedent that reaches far beyond Texas.
What Happened
The Texas Legislature passed a law in 2025 requiring every public elementary and secondary school classroom to display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments, at a minimum size of 16 by 20 inches, in a typeface legible from anywhere in the room. Two lower courts struck the law down, but on April 21, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed those rulings in a narrow 9-8 decision, finding that mandatory display of the text does not constitute government endorsement of religion and does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling drew sharp criticism from those who argue it contradicts nearly two centuries of legal precedent. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, described the clause as building “a wall of separation between Church and State.” That principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision and again in its 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling, in which Justice Hugo Black wrote that Jefferson’s phrase captured the intent of the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishing religion.
The Personal Dimension
University of Wyoming professor David Romtvedt, writing in a personal essay, frames the issue through his own multi-faith heritage — a background that includes Belgian and German Catholics, Norwegian Lutherans, a Sephardic Jewish ancestor who fled persecution on the Iberian Peninsula, and a Sami great-grandmother who maintained Indigenous spiritual practices. That layered history, he argues, illustrates precisely why a government-neutral stance on religion has been essential to American liberty.
Romtvedt also raises a pointed question: if a state can mandate the display of one religious text, what principle would prevent classrooms from being required to post texts from Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, or from the Lakota, Arapaho, Crow, Cheyenne, Tlingit, and Tsimshian traditions? The rhetorical point highlights that selective endorsement is the practical effect of the Texas law, regardless of how the Fifth Circuit framed its ruling.
By the Numbers
- 9-8 vote margin in the Fifth Circuit’s April 21, 2026 ruling upholding the Texas Ten Commandments display law
- 2 prior court rulings had struck the law down before the appellate reversal
- 200-plus years of Supreme Court precedent addressing Jefferson’s “wall of separation” language
- At least 2 landmark Supreme Court cases — Reynolds (1879) and Everson (1947) — affirming the church-state boundary
Zoom Out
The Fifth Circuit ruling arrives amid broader national debate over the role of religion in public institutions. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a member of a recently formed federal religious liberty commission, has publicly called the concept of church-state separation “the biggest lie that’s been told in America since our founding” — a statement that places him in direct conflict with Jefferson’s own words and generations of Supreme Court interpretation.
For Wyoming and other Western states with significant Indigenous populations and diverse faith communities, the trajectory of this legal question is not abstract. Public land access, Indigenous rights, and the reach of federal and state authority have long intersected in complex ways across the Mountain West, and the expansion of state power into religious expression in public schools adds another dimension to that conversation.
What’s Next
The narrow Fifth Circuit ruling is considered a strong candidate for Supreme Court review, given that it directly conflicts with prior high court precedent and produced a deeply divided appellate bench. Legal observers expect a petition for certiorari to follow. How the current Supreme Court handles the case could redefine the Establishment Clause’s practical reach for decades to come.
About the Author
