Can Kentucky put a Ten Commandments monument back on the Capitol grounds and require the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms?

Plain-English summary

An attorney writing for a large group of Kentucky legislators, 77 sitting members of the General Assembly plus several former lawmakers, asked the Attorney General two questions: could the state put a Ten Commandments monument back on the Capitol grounds, and could it require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, without running into the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

The Attorney General's answer to both is a qualified "likely yes." The reasoning turns on a shift in U.S. Supreme Court doctrine. Earlier rulings that struck down Kentucky's Capitol monument and its 1978 classroom-display law (KRS 158.178) rested on the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. The opinion explains that the Supreme Court has since abandoned Lemon in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and replaced it with an analysis grounded in "historical practices and understandings." Under that newer test, and following Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the opinion concludes a passive monument and a properly framed classroom display would likely survive a challenge, provided the display's purpose is to mark the historical significance of the text rather than to advance religion.

The opinion is careful about its own limits: it says outcomes "may vary depending on the specific provisions" of any law the legislature actually passes, and it describes Louisiana's classroom statute (the subject of Roake v. Brumley) as one model, not a required template.

What this means for you

State legislators

The opinion gives the General Assembly a legal basis to consider new Ten Commandments legislation, but it frames its conclusions as predictions ("likely would not violate," "likely may direct") rather than guarantees. For a classroom-display law, the opinion ties the likely outcome to the law articulating a genuine secular, educational, historical purpose and to the manner and context of the display lacking a "plainly religious, pre-eminent purpose."

Public school officials and school boards

The opinion does not itself require or authorize any classroom display; it addresses what the General Assembly could do. If the legislature passes a display law, the opinion's analysis suggests the display's framing matters, for example, the Louisiana model it discusses pairs the text with a "context statement" on the document's role in American education and allows other historical documents alongside it.

Constitutional-law attorneys and civil-liberties advocates

The opinion's central claim is doctrinal: that Stone v. Graham (1980) and Adland v. Russ rested on the now-abandoned Lemon framework, and that Kennedy and Van Orden control today. It also notes that under Kennedy, an Establishment Clause plaintiff now bears the burden of showing the practice "align[s] with a historically disfavored establishmentarian practice."

Common questions

Q: Did the Attorney General say Kentucky can definitely post the Ten Commandments in schools?
A: No. The opinion says a properly drafted law "likely" would survive a constitutional challenge, and it expressly notes the outcome could vary with the specific terms of any law the legislature passes. It is a forecast about how courts would likely rule, not a final answer.

Q: Didn't the Supreme Court already strike down a Kentucky classroom law?
A: Yes. In Stone v. Graham (1980) the Court held that KRS 158.178, the 1978 classroom-display statute, violated the Establishment Clause. The opinion argues that decision rested entirely on the Lemon test, which the Supreme Court has since abandoned, so a court today would analyze the question differently.

Q: What changed in the law?
A: According to the opinion, the Supreme Court abandoned the Lemon v. Kurtzman test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and now interprets the Establishment Clause by reference to historical practices and understandings, building on the monument ruling in Van Orden v. Perry (2005).

Q: What kind of display is most likely to be upheld?
A: Based on the opinion, a "passive" display whose purpose and context emphasize the historical and secular significance of the Ten Commandments, rather than a plainly religious purpose. The opinion points to Louisiana's statute, with its required historical context statement, as one example of that approach.

Background and statutory framework

Kentucky has a long history with this question. A Ten Commandments monument stood on the Capitol grounds from 1971 until around 1980. A 2000 effort to re-display it led to Adland v. Russ, where the courts enjoined the display under the Lemon test. Separately, the 1978 classroom-display statute (KRS 158.178) was struck down in Stone v. Graham (1980), again under Lemon.

The opinion's framework is built on the more recent line of Supreme Court cases: Van Orden v. Perry (2005), upholding a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds; American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019); and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), which the opinion reads as having replaced Lemon with a history-and-tradition test. The Kentucky Attorney General's office had led a 17-state amicus brief supporting Louisiana's classroom law in Roake v. Brumley, and the opinion draws on that brief's reasoning throughout.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• KRS 158.178 (Kentucky's 1978 classroom Ten Commandments statute)
• La. Rev. Stat. § 17:2124 (Louisiana classroom display law)

Cases:

• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the abandoned Establishment Clause test
• Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), struck down KRS 158.178
• Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), upheld a Texas Capitol monument
• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), abandoned Lemon
• American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. 19 (2019)
• Roake v. Brumley, No. 24-30706 (5th Cir.), Louisiana classroom-display litigation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Opinions/Pages/default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG%2025-02.pdf

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General:

February 20, 2025
OAG 25-02
Subject: 1. May the General Assembly restore a Ten Commandments
monument to the Capitol grounds without violating the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

2. May the General Assembly direct public schools in
   Kentucky to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in
   classrooms?
   Requested by: Clinton J Elliot, Attorney, on behalf of former State
   Representatives Claudia and Tom Riner, former House
   Speakers Jody Richards and Greg Stumbo, and the following 77
   current Kentucky State Senators and State Representatives1:
   State Senators State Representatives
   President Robert Stivers, Dist. 25 Speaker David W. Osborne, Dist. 59
   Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, Dist. 6 Rep. Jennifer Decker, Dist. 58
   Sen. Shelley Funke Frommeyer, Dist. 24 Rep. Emily Callaway, Dist. 37
   Sen. Amanda Mays Bledsoe, Dist. 12 Rep. Deanna Gordon, Dist. 81
   Sen. Robin L. Webb, Dist. 18 Rep. Kim King, Dist. 55
   Sen. Gary Boswell, Dist. 8 Rep. Savannah Maddox, Dist. 61
   Sen. Danny Carroll, Dist. 2 Rep. Candy Massaroni, Dist. 50
   Sen. Donald Douglas, Dist. 22 Rep. Marianne Proctor, Dist. 60
   Sen. Greg Elkins, Dist. 28 Rep. Felicia Rabourn, Dist. 47
   Sen. Rick Girdler, Dist. 15 Rep. Nancy Tate, Dist. 27
   Sen. Jimmy Higdon, Dist. 14 Rep. Shane Baker, Dist. 85
   Sen. Scott Madon, Dist. 29 Rep. Adam Bowling, Dist. 87
   Sen. Stephen Meredith, Dist. 5 Rep. Josh Branscum, Dist. 83
   Sen. Robby Mills, Dist. 4 Rep. Steve Bratcher, Dist. 25
   Sen. Matt Nunn, Dist. 17 Rep. Josh Bray, Dist. 71
   1 Current Senators and Representatives are listed in the order reflected in the letter requesting this
   opinion.
   Sen. Steve Rawlings, Dist. 11 Rep. Josh Calloway, Dist. 10
   Sen. Aaron Reed, Dist. 7 Rep. Steven Doan, Dist. 69
   Sen. Craig Richardson, Dist. 3 Rep. Ryan Dotson, Dist. 73
   Sen. Brandon Smith, Dist. 30 Rep. Daniel Elliott, Dist. 54
   Sen. Brandon J. Storm, Dist. 21 Rep. Daniel Fister, Dist. 56
   Sen. Stephen West, Dist. 27 Rep. Patrick Flannery, Dist. 96
   Sen. Phillip Wheeler, Dist. 31 Rep. Chris Freeland, Dist. 6
   Sen. Gex Williams, Dist. 20 Rep. Chris Fugate, Dist. 84
   Sen. Mike Wilson, Dist. 32 Rep. Jim Gooch, Jr., Dist. 12
   Sen. Max Wise, Dist. 16 Rep. Peyton Griffee, Dist. 26
   Sen. Julie Raque Adams, Dist. 36 Rep. David Hale, Dist. 74
   Rep. Tony Hampton, Dist. 62
   Rep. Mark Hart, Dist. 78
   Rep. John Hodgson, Dist. 36
   Rep. Kim Holloway, Dist. 2
   Rep. Thomas Huff, Dist. 49
   Rep. Mary Beth Imes, Dist. 5
   Rep. DJ Johnson, Dist. 13
   Rep. Chris Lewis, Dist. 29
   Rep. Scott Lewis, Dist. 14
   Rep. Michael Meredith, Dist. 19
   Rep. Shawn McPherson, Dist. 22
   Rep. Jason Nemes, Dist. 33
   Rep. Jason Petrie, Dist. 16
   Rep. T. J. Roberts, Dist. 66
   Rep. Scott Sharp, Dist. 100
   Rep. Tom Smith, Dist. 86
   Rep. Walker Thomas, Dist. 8
   Rep. Aaron Thompson, Dist. 98
   Rep. James Tipton, Dist. 53
   Rep. Timmy Truett, Dist. 89
   Rep. Bill Wesley, Dist. 91
   Rep. Richard White, Dist. 99
   Rep. Wade Williams, Dist. 4
   Rep. Nick Wilson, Dist. 82
   Rep. Kimberly Poore Moser, Dist. 64
   Written by: Christopher L. Thacker, General Counsel
   Syllabus: 1. Restoring a monument inscribed with the text of the Ten
   Commandments to the Capitol grounds in recognition of the role
   that the Ten Commandments have played in the history of our
   nation and Commonwealth likely would not violate the
   Establishment Clause.
3. The General Assembly likely may direct public schools in
   Kentucky to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in
   classrooms without violating the Establishment Clause provided
   that the manner and context of such displays “lack a ‘plainly
   religious,’ ‘pre-eminent purpose,’”2 but rather serve to highlight
   the “undeniable historical meaning”3 of the text.
   Opinion of the Attorney General
   Writing on behalf of former State Representatives Claudia and Tom Riner,
   former House Speakers Jody Richards and Greg Stumbo, and 77 current members of
   the Kentucky General Assembly, attorney Clinton J Elliot has requested an opinion
   “on the constitutionality of restoring the Ten Commandments display to the Capitol
   grounds in Frankfort and in our public schools.” That a majority of the current
   membership of the General Assembly chose to join in this request is clearly indicative
   of the significance of the issue to the citizens of our Commonwealth. The importance
   and timeliness of the questions addressed in this opinion motivated the Office of
   Attorney General to lead a coalition of 17 states in filing an amicus brief before the
   United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of a law recently
   enacted by the state of Louisiana providing for Ten Commandments displays in public
   school classrooms. Roake v. Brumley, No. 24-30706 (5th Cir. filed Nov. 12, 2024).
   As set forth in that brief, and as further discussed below, judicial decisions
   striking down previous Kentucky statutes providing for the display of the Ten
   Commandments were firmly grounded on the now repudiated Establishment Clause
   test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). In place of the Lemon
   factors, the Supreme Court has since adopted an Establishment Clause analysis that
   is focused on “the nature of the monument” and “our Nation’s history.” Van Orden v.
   Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686 (2005) (plurality opinion). More recently, the Court has
   expressly directed that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference
   to historical practices and understandings” and “accord with history and faithfully
   reflect the understanding of the Founding Fathers.” Kennedy v. Bremerton School
   District, 597 U.S. 507, 535–36 (2022) (cleaned up). Under such an analysis “focused
   on original meaning and history,” id. at 536, public displays of the Ten
   Commandments on government property will likely be found to comport with the
   Establishment Clause absent evidence that a display was erected for a primarily
   religious reason, rather than to acknowledge the historical significance of the text.
   2 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 691 n.11 (2005) (citation omitted).
   3 Id. at 690.
4. The restoration of a passive monument inscribed with the text of
   the Ten Commandments to the Capitol grounds likely would not
   violate the Establishment Clause.
   A Ten Commandments monument was displayed on the grounds of the
   Kentucky State Capitol from 1971 until 1980 or so. It was removed at that time to
   make room for construction on the grounds. In 2000, Governor Patton signed Senate
   Joint Resolution 57, which ordered the Department for Facilities Management to
   display the monument near the floral clock located on the West Lawn of the Capitol
   grounds. This prompted a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) in
   the United States District Court, Frankfort Division. The Court granted the ACLU a
   permanent injunction because it found the law violated the Establishment Clause.
   Adland v. Russ, 107 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Ky. 2000). In doing so, the Court applied
   the Lemon test and permanently enjoined the state defendant from applying the law
   to “relocat[e] the ‘Ten Commandments Monument’ to the location on the Capitol
   grounds near the floral clock.” Id. at 784–87.
   The Sixth Circuit affirmed, in a 2–1 opinion. 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002). That
   opinion again expressly applied the Lemon test. Id. at 479. While the appellate court
   recognized the criticisms of Lemon, it held that “we are an intermediate federal court
   and are bound to follow this test until the Supreme Court explicitly overrules or
   abandons it.” Id. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed on
   behalf of the Commonwealth, leaving the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in place. Russ v.
   Adland, 538 U.S. 999 (2003).
   In 2005, however, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Van Orden v. Perry. There,
   a plurality held that “the First Amendment allows the display of a monument
   inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds.” 545 U.S.
   at 681. Based upon the Court’s description of it, that Texas’s monument appears
   substantively identical to the one that was previously displayed on the Capitol
   grounds here in Kentucky. The Supreme Court found that the Lemon test was “not
   useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected on its
   Capitol grounds.” Id. at 686. Justice Breyer provided the fifth vote and concurred in
   the judgment. Id. at 698. He found it important that Texas’s display “has stood
   apparently uncontested for nearly two generations.” Id. at 704.
   In 2022, the Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 598
   U.S. 507 (2022), in which it concluded it had “long ago abandoned Lemon.” Id. at 534.
   In its place, the Court instructed that historical practice and understanding should
   guide the Establishment Clause analysis. Id. at 535. Relevant here, the Kennedy
   decision completely undermines the reasoning of both the district court decision and
   the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Adland v. Russ. Accordingly, a federal court reviewing
   the same issue today would apply Kennedy’s history-focused test.
   As this Office explained in a recent amicus brief, the weight of historical
   evidence in favor of public displays of the Ten Commandments is significant:
   “[A]cknowledgements [on public property] of the role
   played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s heritage
   are common throughout America.” [Van Orden, 545 U.S. at
   688] (emphasis added). In fact, the Court noted that the
   Ten Commandments are displayed several places in its
   own building. The Decalogue appears with Moses in the
   Supreme Court’s “own Courtroom”; it “adorn[s]” the gates
   on both sides of the Courtroom and the “doors leading into
   the Courtroom”; and “Moses . . . sits on the exterior east
   facade of the building holding the Ten Commandments
   tablets.” Id. And the Supreme Court’s building is no
   exception when compared to other government buildings in
   our Nation’s capital. Id. at 689 (“Similar
   acknowledgements can be seen throughout a visitor’s tour
   of our Nation’s Capital.”). The Supreme Court later
   affirmed that “[i]n Van Orden and McCreary, no Member
   of the Court thought that these depictions [of the Ten
   Commandments] are unconstitutional.” [American Legion
   v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. 19, 53
   (2019)].4
   Accordingly, federal courts faced with the question today under a newly passed
   Kentucky law would likely hold that restoration of the Ten Commandments
   monument to the Capitol grounds would not violate the First Amendment.
5. The General Assembly may likely direct public schools in Kentucky
   to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms without
   violating the Establishment Clause provided that the manner and
   context of such displays highlight the “undeniable historical
   meaning” of the Ten Commandments.
   In 1978, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted House Bill 156, which was
   codified as KRS 158.178. That statute directs “the Superintendent of Public
   Instruction” “to ensure that a durable, permanent copy of the Ten Commandments
   [is] displayed on a wall in each public elementary and secondary school classroom in
   the Commonwealth.” The law further specifies that such displays are to “be sixteen
   4 Brief for Amici Curiae Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi,
   Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West
   Virginia, Roake v. Brumley, No. 24-30706, p. 10-11 (5th Cir.), ECF No. 100 (herein after “Amicus
   Brief”).
   (16) inches wide by twenty (20) inches high” and accompanied by a notation “[i]n
   small print below the last commandment” explaining “the purpose of the display, as
   follows: ‘The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its
   adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law
   of the United States.’”
   In a per curiam decision, the United States Supreme Court summarily held
   that KRS 158.178 violated the Establishment Clause. See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.
   39 (1980). While the Supreme Court has not specifically revisited the precise question
   of a Ten Commandments display in the public-school setting since abandoning the
   Lemon test for the history and tradition analysis reflected in Van Orden and Kennedy,
   should the General Assembly choose to again provide for the display of the Ten
   Commandments for secular historical and educational purposes, such legislation
   would likely survive constitutional scrutiny.5
   Just as the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Russ v. Adland, the per curiam opinion
   in Stone v. Graham rested firmly on the now abandoned Lemon analysis. This Office
   elaborated on this point in the amicus brief filed in support of Louisiana’s more recent
   Ten Commandments law:
   From beginning to end, the Court applied Lemon—in
   particular, its first prong. Stone, 449 U.S. at 40–43. Stone
   can be read no other way. As the Court summarized at the
   top of its decision: “We conclude that Kentucky’s statute
   requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public
   schoolrooms had no secular purpose, and is therefore
   unconstitutional.” Id. at 41. So Stone was all about—and
   only about—Lemon.
   In applying Lemon, Stone rejected Kentucky’s “‘avowed’
   secular purpose,” expressed through the statutorily
   required statement at the bottom of each Ten
   Commandments display. Id. The Court summarily
   declared that “[t]he pre-eminent purpose for posting the
   Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly
   religious in nature.” Id. The Court, however, qualified that
   it was not holding that the Ten Commandments can never
   be displayed or discussed in public schools. It emphasized
   5 Significantly, even before Lemon’s abrogation, a clear statement of legislative purpose should be
   accepted as sufficient evidence of a secular purpose. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 74–75 (1985)
   (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (stating the Lemon-era standard: “[i]f a legislature expresses a
   plausible secular purpose,” “courts should generally defer”).
   that “[t]his is not a case in which the Ten Commandments
   are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible
   may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of
   history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the
   like.” Id. at 42. At the end of its decision, the Court
   returned to Lemon, reiterating that Kentucky’s law
   “violates the first part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, and
   thus the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.” Id. at
   42–43.6
   Accordingly, although the Supreme Court has not specifically stated that Stone
   is overruled, the decision unmistakably rests on a mode of analysis that the Supreme
   Court has abrogated. It likely follows that while the ultimate outcome of any
   litigation involving a new statute providing for the display of the Ten Commandments
   in Kentucky’s classrooms may vary depending on the specific provisions and
   requirements of any new law, the analysis will look very different than that of the
   Stone opinion. Rather than rely on the Lemon test, the courts will now look to “the
   nature of the [display],” Van Orden at 686, and apply the history-focused test
   mandated by the Supreme Court in Kennedy. Under this corrected constitutional
   analysis, any statute that clearly articulates a valid secular, educational purpose
   would likely be upheld notwithstanding the ruling in Stone.
   As the Office explained, the plurality opinion in Van Orden clearly reflects just
   how limited Stone’s continuing validity is, even in the context of public-school
   classrooms.
   [T]he Van Orden plurality highlighted that nothing
   “suggest[s] that Stone would extend to displays of the Ten
   Commandments that lack a ‘plainly religious,’ ‘pre-
   eminent purpose.’” 545 U.S. at 691 n.11 (citation omitted).
   In other words, the Van Orden plurality wrote off Stone as
   a case in which the displays contained not even a hint of a
   secular purpose. See id. That can only be a rare
   circumstance. After all, in nearly the same breath, the Van
   Orden plurality held that “the Ten Commandments have
   an undeniable historical meaning” and that “[s]imply
   having religious content or promoting a message consistent
   with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the
   Establishment Clause.” Id. at 690.
   Accordingly, provided that any new law directing the display of the Ten
   Commandments in the Commonwealth’s classrooms recognizes the “historical
   6 Amicus Brief, p. 5-6.
   significance” that the Ten Commandments have “as one of the foundations of our
   legal system,” the law would likely be upheld. Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 588
   U.S. 29, 53 (2019).
   The Louisiana statute at issue in Roake v. Brumley offers one model for such
   legislation, though by no means the only constitutionally permissible one. See La.
   Rev. Stat. § 17:2124. In particular, the Louisiana statute provides flexibility to local
   school districts to determine the exact format of displays of the Ten Commandments,
   requires a robust three-paragraph “context statement” providing discrete examples
   of the Ten Commandments being “a prominent part of American public education for
   almost three centuries,” and permits the display of other historical documents
   alongside the Ten Commandants. While none of these features are necessarily
   required to ensure the constitutionality of the statute, they clearly demonstrate the
   secular, educational purpose of the displays.
   Finally, the kind of display envisioned by the requestors is passive. As
   explained in the letter requesting this opinion, “the display is not intended to require
   participation.” As such, it is not likely that a court reviewing a challenge to a new law
   providing for the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools would find a
   constitutional violation based on any coercive impact. As Justice Gorsuch wrote for
   the Court in Kennedy: “Of course, some will take offense to certain forms of speech []
   they are sure to encounter in a society where those activities enjoy such robust
   constitutional protection. But ‘[o]ffense ... does not equate to coercion.’” 597 U.S. at
   538–39 (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 589 (2014) (plurality
   opinion)).
   Conclusion
   In the years since the last litigation involving public displays of the Ten
   Commandants within the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court has abandoned the
   misguided Lemon test and clarified that the controlling analysis in all such cases is
   “that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical
   practices and understandings.” Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 510. Specifically, in Kennedy the
   Court explained what those practices and understandings are—namely, “the
   hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they
   adopted the First Amendment.” Id. at 537; accord Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S.
   243, 285–87 (2022) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the judgment). Moreover, under the
   analysis mandated by Kennedy, Establishment Clause plaintiffs now bear “the
   burden” of “proving that th[e] facts align with a historically disfavored
   establishmentarian practice.” Firewalker-Fields v. Lee, 58 F.4th 104, 122 n.7 (4th Cir.
   2023)
   This poses a significant hurdle for any plaintiff challenging a Ten
   Commandments display in any public space, as “[n]o one at the time of the founding
   is recorded as arguing that the use of religious symbols in public contexts was a form
   of religious establishment.” Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 287 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the
   judgment) (citation omitted). Thus, the Commonwealth has considerable latitude in
   deciding whether and how to draw attention to the historical significance and
   influence of the Ten Commandments without offending the Establishment Clause.
   Russell Coleman
   Attorney General
   Christopher L. Thacker
   General Counsel