Saint Martin's professor says recent state moves to promote religious texts in schools raise First Amendment concerns

Professor Robert Hallhart, a member of the faculty at Saint Martin's University, told a Constitution Day audience that recent state actions to place religious texts or displays in public schools or classrooms raise serious First Amendment questions.

Hallhart, speaking Oct. 3 at Saint Martin's, said the dispute centers on whether those actions amount to permissible, secular instruction or whether they function as government endorsement of a particular religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," he recited, and argued that the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment constrain state officials from acting in ways that establish or favor a religion.

Why it matters: Hallhart connected the issue to real-world policy moves. He cited a June directive by the Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction and a July 24 guidance memo that, according to his remarks, required teachers in grades 5–12 to be given physical copies of the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Ten Commandments for classroom use. He also discussed Louisiana's HB 71, which the lecture said requires poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom; Hallhart noted that the ACLU of Louisiana filed suit on June 24, 2024 challenging that law.

Court precedents and context: Hallhart reviewed a string of court decisions showing how context matters when government displays religious text. He described early school cases in which students who objected to compulsory patriotic exercises were ultimately protected by the courts, and he cited Supreme Court rulings addressing the posting of the Ten Commandments and government monument displays. "In the court's view, it constituted a combination of religion and government," he said of a monument case, explaining that placement, funding, dedication ceremonies and the surrounding context can make a display appear to endorse a faith.

On classroom postings specifically, Hallhart discussed Stone v. Graham, in which the Supreme Court invalidated Kentucky classroom postings of the Ten Commandments because the display lacked a secular legislative purpose. He also recounted appellate rulings in which courts found that longstanding religious displays and related municipal actions—fundraising by churches, dedications with prayer, and prominent placement on government grounds—could not be cured solely by adding secular markers.

On the Oklahoma guidance memo, Hallhart said whether it will survive constitutional scrutiny "will depend on the facts developed if a case is filed," noting the memo's apparent failure (as presented in his remarks) to provide comparable sacred texts representing other faiths. "To a degree, it will depend on the facts developed," he said. "Comparable quotations and comparable sacred texts from other religions were not provided for in the superintendent's order."

Audience exchange: During a question-and-answer period, an audience member asked why such efforts to introduce religion into public institutions seem more prominent now. Hallhart responded that these efforts have a long history but tend to surge periodically—often tied to what scholars call culture-war movements—and that litigation outcomes can turn on the composition of the federal judiciary. He referenced the Dobbs decision as part of a broader set of legal developments that have energized periodic waves of contestation.

What did not happen: Hallhart did not announce any litigation brought by Saint Martin's or by event organizers; he limited his remarks to legal analysis and invited attendees to ask questions after the lecture.

The event was filmed and broadcast-quality recording was noted on site by the speaker.