Ongoing Lawsuits

South Carolina Resident Sues Over “So Help Me God” Requirement for Poll Workers

Plaintiff Jim Reel
Plaintiff Jim Reel

On October 8, 2025, FFRF filed a lawsuit on behalf of South Carolina resident Jim Reel. Reel sought to become a poll worker for the 2024 election. While he completed the required online training, he was not allowed to substitute a secular affirmation for the religious oath that was required as part of the application process. Reel is an atheist and due to his sincerely held convictions, he is unwilling to swear “so help me God.”

Reel asked the Greenville County voter registration and elections office whether a secular affirmation was available for poll workers in lieu of the religious oath. The office responded that a secular affirmation without “so help me God” would not be accepted. FFRF then sent a letter on Reel’s behalf to the State Election Commission, noting that Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. The director of the commission responded, in part, that “the County Boards must require it to be signed before trained candidates are appointed poll workers.” FFRF then followed up with the county election board and filed a lawsuit after the county refused to offer a secular alternative.

FFRF’s complaint argues that the defendants are coercing a statement of belief in a monotheistic deity, thereby denying nontheists or those worshiping more than one deity the right to serve as poll workers. Not only is Reel, as an atheist, barred from becoming a poll worker under this policy, but the rights of other South Carolina citizens who have no religious affiliation are also injured. Additionally, the defendants are denying Christians who belong to sects that eschew swearing oaths to a deity, such as some Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers, the right to serve as poll workers.

This lawsuit was filed in the US District Court of South Carolina. South Carolina attorney Steven Edward Buckingham is acting as local counsel, with FFRF Senior Litigation Counsel Sam Grover and Legal Fellow Kyle Steinberg acting as co-counsel. 

Texas Families Sue to Block Law Mandating Ten Commandments in Public Schools

Nathan et al v. Alamo Heights Independent School District et al

On July 2nd, 2025, FFRF and a coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of sixteen multifaith and nonreligious Texas families to block a state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

Texas Senate Bill 10 requires all public elementary and secondary schools statewide to display either a “durable poster” or “framed copy” of the Ten Commandments in a conspicuous location within every classroom. The law specifies a particular Protestant version of the Ten Commandments.

On August 20, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the school districts from implementing the law. 

The plaintiffs include Jewish, Christian, Baptist, nonreligious, Hindu, and Unitarian families. The complaint argues that SB 10 violates both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the separation of church and state and guarantees religious freedom.

Cribbs Ringer et al v. Comal Independent School District et al

On September 22, 2025, FFRF and a coalition filed a second lawsuit on behalf of a group of 15 nonreligious and multifaith Texas families.This new complaint is a response to school districts that have or are about to display Ten Commandments posters, despite the federal court’s ruling in the coalition’s other Texas case. 

On November 18, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the named public school districts to remove Ten Commandments displays by December 1st and prohibiting them from posting new displays.

Ashby et al v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District et al

On December 2, 2025, FFRF and a coalition filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of eighteen multifaith and nonreligious Texas families. This lawsuit aims to stop all Texas public school districts that are not already involved in active litigation or subject to an injunction from displaying the Ten Commandments in every classroom. It was filed in response to the districts who have not complied with the rulings in the previous two related cases and continue to unlawfully display the Ten Commandments. If successful, the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction would apply to the more than 1,000 school districts in Texas.

 

All three lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, American United for Separation of Church & State, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and FFRF. Legal Director Patrick Elliott, Senior Litigation Counsel Sam Grover, and Litigation Attorney Nancy Noet are serving as co-counsel. 

Arkansas Families Sue to Block Law Mandating Ten Commandments in Public Schools

On June 11th, 2025, FFRF and a coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of a multifaith group of seven families with children in Arkansas public schools to block a new state law requiring all public classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. 

Arkansas Act 573 of 2025 requires all public school classrooms and libraries to display the Ten Commandments on posters measuring at least 16-by-20 inches, positioned in a “conspicuous place.” The law specifies that the text must be printed in a size and typeface legible to anyone with average vision from anywhere in the room. Additionally, the statute mandates use of a specific version of the Ten Commandments associated with Protestant denomination. This version was selected by state lawmakers rather than individual schools or communities.

The plaintiffs—who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious—assert that the statute violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

On August 4, 2025, the Western District of Arkansas issued a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. This prohibits the school district defendants from “complying with Act 573 of 2025 by displaying the Ten Commandments in public elementary- and secondary-school classrooms and libraries.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Arkansas, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and FFRF. Legal Director Patrick Elliot, Senior Litigation Counsel Sam Grover, and Staff Attorney Nancy Noet are serving as co-counsel. 

Quincy, MA Residents Sue to Stop Public Religious Statues

Mockup of the Quincy statues
Mockup of the Quincy statues

On May 28th, 2025, FFRF and a coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of Quincy, Massachusetts residents to halt the planned installation of two large religious statues of Catholic saints at the entrance of Quincy’s new public safety building. 

The lawsuit centers on Mayor Thomas P. Koch’s 2023 plan to construct two 10-foot-tall bronze statues of Catholic saints and place them at the entrance of the building, which will house the headquarters of Quincy’s police and fire departments. The statues would cost taxpayers at least $850,000, yet the public only learned of the plan in February 2025 through local media reports.

FFRF’s lawsuit argues that the planned religious statues violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by subordinating other religions to the Catholic faith.

On October 14, 2025, the Norfolk Superior Court granted the coalition’s preliminary injunction blocking the planned installation of the statues. The ruling ensures that the statues of St. Michael and St. Florian will not be installed while the case proceeds. The court also denied the city of Quincy’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

FFRF attorneys involved in this case are Legal Director Patrick Elliott and Legal Fellow Kyle Steinberg. Plaintiffs are also represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This case is in Norfolk Superior Court within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with case number 2582CV00576.

Wisconsin Residents Challenge Special Tax Exemption for Church-Owned Properties

Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker in front of the Pres House for tax exemption lawsuit
FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker in front of The Pres House

On January 14, 2025 FFRF and three Madison, WI residents filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that exempts two rental properties owned by religious entities from paying property taxes. The law in question was specifically created to benefit the church-owned properties The Pres House and Lumen House Apartments in Madison, WI. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, taxpayer David Peterson, and FFRF itself. 

This tax exemption started in 2009 when the Wisconsin Legislature enacted a property tax exemption to benefit the Pres House Apartments, owned by the Presbyterian Student Center Foundation. Then, in 2013, the Legislature approved an amendment to benefit the Lumen House Apartments, owned by the St. Raphael’s Congregation within the Diocese of Madison. Both of these are designed for student renters and are extremely profitable properties. The Pres House Apartments’ current market value likely exceeds $25 million, with estimated property taxes owed in excess of $300,000 annually. Lumen House Apartments’ current market value likely exceeds $7.6 million, with estimated property taxes exceeding $94,000 annually.

The plaintiffs and Madison residents are forced to pay higher taxes to make up for the omission of these properties from the tax rolls. Further, it harms plaintiff FFRF, since it favors rental properties owned by two religious nonprofit organizations to the exclusion of all other nonprofits that may desire to run student apartments in the future. 

FFRF’s lawsuit argues that the exemption is unlawful under the Wisconsin Constitution on several counts. The exemption violates the Uniformity Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Establishment Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. The exemption also is unconstitutional as it was approved via a private bill by the legislature. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment striking down the exemption.

On March 21, 2025 the Wisconsin State Senate moved to intervene in this lawsuit in order to defend the tax exemption.

Plaintiffs are represented by FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence, Staff Attorney Nancy Noet, Legal Director Patrick Elliott, and Pines Bach attorney Christa Westerberg in Madison, WI. 

Oklahoma Families Petition to Block Oklahoma Bible Mandate

On October 17, 2024, FFRF and a coalition filed a petition on behalf of Oklahoma families with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters’ mandate that all public schools incorporate the bible into their curricula. Additionally, the petition asks the court to stop the state from spending millions of taxpayer dollars on bibles to support the mandate.

On June 27, 2024, Ryan Walters issued a mandate that would require every public school in Oklahoma to incorporate the bible into the curriculum for grades 5-12. He requested $3 million in taxpayer money to purchase a version of the King James Bible. The edition he requested includes the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and Bill of Rights.

The petition asserts that the bible-education mandate violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections. This is because the government is spending public money to support religion, as well as favoring one religion over others by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the bible. Additionally, the mandate violates the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and other state statutes because officials did not follow required rules for adopting new policies and for spending public money.

There are thirty-two plaintiffs, including fourteen public school parents, four public school teachers and three faith leaders. They are represented by FFRF, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. FFRF Senior Counsel Samuel Grover and FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott are serving as co-counsel on the case. 

FFRF and Coalition Sue Over Law Requiring the Ten Commandments in Louisiana Classrooms

On June 24, 2024 FFRF, the ACLU, the ACLU of Louisiana, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a coalition lawsuit challenging a newly enacted law in Louisiana that would require all public schools to display the Ten Commandments.

This law mandates that every classroom display the Ten Commandments on “a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches.” The commandments must be the “central focus” of the display and “printed in a large, easily readable font.” It also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, which has been dictated by the state Legislature, be used for every display. Displays that depart from this state-sanctioned version of scripture would violate Louisiana law.

The complaint asserts that the statute violates long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court previously overturned a similar state law in Stone v. Graham, holding that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. No other state requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools. 

The complaint further alleges that Louisiana’s law “substantially interferes with and burdens” parents’ First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing, and that, in approving and mandating the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments, the law runs afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government taking sides on questions of theological debate.

In November 2024, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction that prevented the defendants from implementing the statute. On June 20, 2025, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Unfortunately, on October 6, 2025, the 5th Circuit agreed to reconsider the prior ruling by granting a rehearing en banc.

The 5th Circuit’s en banc decision vacated the federal district court’s November 2024 preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the ACLU, the ACLU of Louisiana, and Americans United, with Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. FFRF Senior Counsel Samuel Grover and FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott are serving as co-counsel on the case. The lawsuit is in the Middle District of Louisiana District Court with case number 3:24-cv-00517-JWD-SDJ.

FFRF and Coalition Sue to Remove Arkansas Ten Commandments Monument

Arkansas 10 CommandmentsThe Freedom From Religion Foundation and a coalition of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 23, 2018, against Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin seeking the removal of a massive Ten Commandments structure from the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol.

FFRF and its co-plaintiffs assert that this installation is in clear violation of constitutional precepts. The plaintiffs include FFRF, the American Humanist Association, the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, as well as seven individual plaintiffs who are religious and nonreligious citizens of Arkansas.

“The state of Arkansas has erected an enormous religious monolith on government property in blatant disregard for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the suit states. “The new monolith — a 6-and-one-third-foot tall Ten Commandments statue — stands prominently on the state Capitol grounds.”

The suit details how the Arkansas Legislature initiated this unconstitutional move.
“In 2016, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted Act 1231, the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act,” it states. “The purpose of the act was to permit the placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Arkansas state Capitol. The exact text of such a monument was prescribed by the General Assembly.”

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the monument is unconstitutional, an injunction directing the defendant to remove the monument, and costs and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit was consolidated with a case brought by the ACLU of Arkansas. The conjoined cases (No. 4:18-cv-00342) are before Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Attorney Gerry Schulze is representing the plaintiffs along with FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott.

FFRF Defends School Board Prayer Victory in Chino Valley, CA

Chino Valley logo superimposed over a background and hands

Original Lawsuit

In 2014, FFRF filed a lawsuit against the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education because of their unconstitutional practice of opening meetings with sectarian prayer, bible reading, and proselytizing. This lawsuit was on behalf of 22 local students, parents and employees who objected to the practice. In 2016, a U.S. district court ruled in FFRF’s favor. This decision was unanimously upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018, affirming that the board’s actions violated the First Amendment. As a result, the school district was ordered to pay more than $275,000 in FFRF’s legal fees.

New Lawsuit

The Chino Board of Education is now attempting to end a court injunction that prohibits board members from opening their public meetings with prayer. The board filed a motion to reopen the case on July 31, 2025, arguing that the injunction issued in 2016 by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California should be lifted. The board incorrectly claims the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District means that the legal basis for the district court order no longer exists.

FFRF’s original victory was upheld on October 10, 2025 by the district court. The court also granted FFRF’s requested attorneys’ fees of $134,006. In response, the Board has appealed the court’s decision to the 9th Circuit.

FFRF is represented by Attorneys Matthew Murray and Lisa Demidovich of Altshuler Berzon and Attorney Rich Bolton of Boardman Clark. Legal Director Patrick Elliott and Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence are also serving as co-counsel.

Freedom From Religion Foundation