BATON ROUGE - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a Louisiana law that every public school post a copy of the Ten Commandments cannot be enforced.

Three judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law, which took effect Jan. 1, is "plainly unconstitutional" and upheld a ruling by a lower court barring the law from being enforced. The state had required that a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments be posted "in large, easily readable fonts" in all classrooms from kindergarten to college.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court found a similar Kentucky law unconstitutional because it had no secular purpose. Louisiana officials tried to set their new state law apart by suggesting that secular documents be posted as well — but only the Ten Commandments were required.

"I think the law saw through those kinds of efforts," said Alex Luchenister, a lawyer for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The law allowed other documents to be displayed near the Ten Commandments but the statute did not require those documents to be displayed. 

"Any other displays are optional. They could have been very small and hard to see," he said.

The attorney general's office said it would ask other judges to weigh in and perhaps take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Luchenister said it was unlikely Louisiana could succeed because of how identical the current case is to the one from Kentucky 45 years ago.

Louisiana had claimed that the challenge was premature because no one yet had been impacted by the law. A lower court had ordered the state schools superintendent and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to tell schools statewide that there was an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law.

"Louisiana is wrong that further factual development is needed in this case," the unanimous ruling said. Even if the Ten Commandments were posted for but a moment, a violation would occur, it said.

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal amounts of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," the court said, citing a 1976 case. "Absent judicial intervention, Louisiana will implement (the law)." 

The three-judge panel rejected Louisiana's insistence that the posters required served a valid "secular historical and educational purpose." Citing a 1985 case, it said "an alleged secular purpose 'must be sincere' and not 'merely a sham.'" 

The court cited testimony from a number of lawmakers who spoke in support of the bill during debates, including that "a lot of people and their children are not attending churches" and "I learned ... to know there was a God by reciting the Ten Commandments." 

Since the law's passing, the state's Attorney General's office and judges had conflicting opinions on how the law should be upheld in the midst of its battle in court; the AG's office said the order only affected districts affected in the lawsuit, while the previous judge's order directed the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the state's education secretary to tell all districts about his decision.

The court's ruling is binding throughout Louisiana, as well as in the rest of the 5th Circuit — Mississippi and Texas — should schools there try the same thing. The court said nothing about limiting its order to the parishes where the plaintiffs live.

"This decision covers the whole state," Luchenitser said. "There was an injunction here against state officials prohibiting the state officials from implementing the statute and the 5th Circuit affirmed that injunction. Very clearly it applies to the whole state. No school district should be putting up the Ten Commandments after this decision."

While much of the Ten Commandments are similar to civil laws, some are far afield, the court noted. Basic principles that prohibit murder, for instance, are fine, but requiring that people worship one God or keep the Sabbath holy "have clear religious import," the ruling said.

The court also rejected Louisiana's argument that the state schools superintendent and BESE couldn't be sued because of the state's sovereign rights. Because they were directed to enforce an unconstitutional law, they are subject to the order, the 5th Circuit said.