• Submit Tips for Investigations
• Newsletters
• About NBC 7 San Diego
• Our News Standards
• Xfinity: Internet, TV, streaming, more

• KNSD Public Inspection File
• KNSD Accessibility
• KNSD Employment Information
• Send Feedback
• FCC Applications
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Advertise with us
• Careers at NBC 7
• CA Notice
• Ad Choices

Copyright © 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved

A new Louisiana requirement that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public classroom by Jan. 1 was temporarily blocked Tuesday by a federal judge who said the law is “unconstitutional on its face.”

U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles in Baton Rouge said the law had an “overtly religious” purpose, and rejected state officials’ claims that the government can mandate the posting of the Ten Commandments because they hold historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law. His opinion noted that no other foundational documents — including the Constitution or the Bill of Rights — must be posted.

In granting a preliminary injunction, DeGravelles said opponents of the law are likely to win their ongoing lawsuit against the law. The lawsuit argues that the law violates the First Amendment’s provisions forbidding the government from establishing a religion or blocking the free exercise of religion. They had argued that the poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments would isolate students, especially those who are not Christian.

DeGravelles said the law amounts to unconstitutional religious government coercion of students: “As Plaintiffs highlight, by law, parents must send their minor children to school and ensure attendance during regular school hours at least 177 days per year.”

Proponents say that the measure is not solely religious, but that it has historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law.

Plaintiffs in the case were a group of parents of Louisiana public school children.

The new law in Louisiana, a reliably Republican state that is ensconced in the Bible Belt, was passed by the state’s GOP-dominated Legislature earlier this year. The Associated Press sought comment Tuesday morning from Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill, both Republicans and supporters of the law.

The legislation, which has been touted by Republicans including President-elect Donald Trump, is one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms — from Florida legislation allowing school districts to have volunteer chaplains to counsel students to Oklahoma’s top education official ordering public schools to incorporate the Bible into lessons.

In recent years, similar bills requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms have been proposed in other states including Texas, Oklahoma and Utah. However, none have gone into effect due to threats of legal battles over the constitutionality of such measures.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law was unconstitutional in 1980 and violated the First Amendment establishment, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but rather served a plainly religious purpose.

Louisiana’s legislation, which applies to all public K-12 schools and state-funded university classrooms, requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed on a poster or framed document at least 11 inches by 14 inches (28 by 36 centimeters) where the text is the central focus and “printed in a large, easily readable font.”

Each poster must be paired with the four-paragraph “context statement” describing how the Ten Commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.”

Tens of thousands of posters would likely be needed to satisfy the new law.

Proponents say schools are not required to spend public money on the posters, and instead that they can be bought using donations or that groups and organizations will donate the actual posters.

• A Dutch court on Tuesday dismissed a landmark climate ruling against Shell, after the oil giant was ordered to drastically reduce its global carbon emissions back in 2021.
• The outcome marks the latest twist in a precedent-setting case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of climate litigation.
• In May 2021, The Hague district court ruled that Shell must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.

A Dutch court on Tuesday dismissed a landmark climate ruling against Shell, after the oil giant was ordered to drastically reduce its global carbon emissions back in 2021.

The outcome, which comes during the opening days of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, marks the latest twist in a precedent-setting case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of climate litigation.

The appeals court in The Hague said that while Shell is required to reduce its carbon emissions, it could not determine the extent of these cuts. The case against Shell, therefore, was dismissed entirely.

In May 2021, The Hague district court ruled that Shell must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.

The verdict, which came when Shell had its headquarters in The Hague, also said the company was responsible for all emissions across its value chain, including those from the products they sell — known as Scope 3 emissions.

It was the first time in history that a company was found to have been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement, a framework which seeks to avoid the worst of what the climate crisis has in store by limiting the average global temperature increase to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius.

The ruling was regarded as a watershed moment in the climate battle and sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies.

The case was brought against Shell in 2019 by Milieudefensie, an environmental campaign group and the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens.

An appeal against Tuesday’s outcome could still be brought before the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, although Milieudefensie has not said whether it plans to launch an appeal.

“The court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage,” the court said in a statement.

What’s more, the court said it deemed an obligation for Shell to sharply reduce its Scope 3 emissions by a particular percentage as “ineffective” because other companies could step in to take over that trade and “this would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.”

Shell welcomed the decision to overturn the 2021 verdict.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company,” Shell CEO Wael Sawan said in a statement.

“Our target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 remains at the heart of Shell’s strategy and is transforming our business,” he added.

Shares of London-listed Shell were trading slightly lower on the news.

A setback for the climate movement

Shell appealed the 2021 decision and subsequently moved its headquarters to the U.K., a relocation that was criticized for being partly motivated by the courtroom defeat. The Hague district court ruling had only been legally binding in the Netherlands.

In appeal hearings held earlier this year, the British oil major argued that the case had no legal basis.

Shell’s lawyers said demands for companies to curb greenhouse gas emissions could not be made by courts, but only by governments, Reuters reported. The company also said the court ruling would force it to shrink its business without any benefit to the fight against climate change.

The burning of coal, oil and gas is by far the largest contributor to the climate crisis, accounting for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“This ruling affects us deeply,” Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, said in a statement.

“It is a setback for us, the climate movement and millions of people around the world who are worried. But anyone who knows us a little knows that we never give up,” Pols said.

“It is encouraging that the judge determines that Shell is responsible for reducing emissions and that companies must also respect human rights. It is a marathon and not a sprint and the race is not yet run,” he added.