Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Religion In Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Hours of Testimony on Bill to Require 10 Commandments Displays in Classrooms
Summary
The Montana Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony for and against Senate Bill 114, a proposal to require displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Supporters called the displays historical; opponents said the measure violates the Establishment Clause and risks harm to Indigenous and non-Christian students.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 14 heard more than three hours of testimony on Senate Bill 114, which would require a plaque displaying the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom in Montana.
Supporters, including bill sponsor Sen. Bob Phelan and representatives from religious-right legal groups and advocacy organizations, told the committee the Ten Commandments are foundational to Western legal traditions and education. "The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced and shaped American law, government, and morality," sponsor Sen. Bob Phelan said during his opening remarks.
The bill prompted lengthy proponent testimony from groups and individuals including Matt Krause of First Liberty Institute, David Barton of WallBuilders Historical Organization, and representatives of the Montana Family Foundation and Montana Retail Association. Krause and Barton framed their support in legal and historical terms, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and examples of longstanding religious displays in public buildings. "The history-and-tradition test now guides the Court's approach," Matt Krause said, arguing the Ten Commandments meet that standard.
Opponents — led by tribal representatives, civil rights groups and public-education officials — urged the committee to reject the bill. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana said the measure "blatantly violates" the separation of church and state and Article II, Section 5, of the Montana Constitution. Several Native American witnesses, including Pat Yawake and Keaton Sunchild, warned the displays would be a painful symbol linked to forced assimilation and boarding-school-era abuses. "Mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in schools privileges one religious perspective while marginalizing indigenous beliefs and other spiritual traditions," Keaton Sunchild said.
Other opponents included public-school officials, teachers and students who raised concerns about coercion, litigation costs and classroom neutrality. A student witness, Charles Snellman, said passage would likely trigger lawsuits and divert funds from education priorities.
The committee received submissions of legal analysis during the hearing. Witnesses from proponent organizations argued Stone v. Graham (1980), the case most often cited against posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms, hinged on an older legal test that the Supreme Court has since moved away from. Opponents pointed to the Stone decision and a recent federal injunction against a Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments displays as controlling precedent for Montana.
The hearing drew broad public participation: dozens of in-person and online witnesses offered vocal and detailed testimony on history, law and community impact. Committee members asked about legal risk to the state, possible costs of anticipated litigation, and the impact of displays on Indigenous students.
The committee closed the hearing after extended public testimony and questions. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; deliberations and any potential amendment or vote were not part of the public record on Jan. 14.
Why it matters: the bill would change what is posted inside public classrooms statewide and raise immediate constitutional questions. Supporters framed the measure as historical and educational; opponents described it as state endorsement of a particular religious tradition and warned of legal and community harms.
What’s next: The committee concluded the public hearing and reserved formal action for a future meeting. If the committee later votes to advance the bill, it is likely to prompt litigation, according to witnesses who opposed the measure.
