5th Cir. en banc  ·  No. 25-50695  ·  Decided April 21, 2026  ·  9-8 to reverse
Visual study · Five panels

The Five-Panel Infographic Series

Each panel distills one aspect of the case: the holding and vote, the statute and procedural path, the majority's six-hallmark reasoning, the dissents' fault lines, and a study guide keyed to the opinion lineup. Designed to be shared, printed, or projected; each is a standalone teaching aid.

Panels5
Vote9-8
Opinions6
Judges17
Pages118
Infographic 1 of 5: Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD — Case at a Glance. Shows the citation, en banc 9-8 vote, central question, and five-word takeaway.
Panel 1 of 5

Case at a Glance

The citation, the en banc 9-8 vote, the question presented, and the one-line takeaway: Stone v. Graham fell with Lemon; the six-hallmark test now controls. The quickest route into the case.

Infographic 2 of 5: Facts, the statute, and the procedural path. Shows Texas S.B. 10's requirements, the plaintiff families, the district-court injunction, and the en banc reversal.
Panel 2 of 5

Facts, Statute, & Procedural Path

What S.B. 10 actually requires (16 × 20 inches, King James Version, conspicuous place, no context statement); who the plaintiffs are (eight faith traditions plus nonreligious families); how the case traveled from a preliminary injunction to en banc reversal.

Infographic 3 of 5: The majority's reasoning. Diagrams the move from Lemon's death to Stone's abrogation, the Shurtleff six-hallmark test, and the conclusion that S.B. 10 checks none of the boxes.
Panel 3 of 5

The Majority's Reasoning

Judge Duncan's five-step logic diagrammed: (1) Kennedy killed Lemon; (2) Stone fell along with it; (3) the Shurtleff six-hallmark framework controls; (4) S.B. 10 triggers none of the six; (5) Mahmoud is limited to "compulsory curriculum," not posters.

Infographic 4 of 5: Dissents and fault lines. Shows the four dissenting opinions (Ramirez, Southwick, Haynes, Higginson) and their three main attacks — stare decisis, coercion, and denominational preference.
Panel 4 of 5

Dissents & Fault Lines

Four dissents, three attacks: Haynes on vertical stare decisis (Rodriguez de Quijas), Ramirez and Southwick on school-context coercion (Lee, Santa Fe), and Higginson on denominational preference (Larson) and parental rights (Mahmoud). Where the 9-8 split really lives.

Infographic 5 of 5: Opinion lineup and teaching takeaways. Shows which judges joined which opinions and lists the key study questions.
Panel 5 of 5

Opinion Lineup & Study Guide

All six opinions mapped across all seventeen judges: majority (Duncan, for 9); Ho's textualist-originalist concurrence; Oldham's partial concurrence (joined by Willett); dissents by Ramirez (principal), Southwick, Haynes (one-paragraph stare-decisis note), and Higginson. With the five study questions every casebook will ask.

→
Go deeper

Full case brief

The nine-section treatment, with opinion-by-opinion analysis and future-application hypotheticals.

 →
Data view

Interactive charts

Vote breakdowns, the opinion-join matrix, and the plaintiff-family denominational composition.

 →
Read the argument

"What Is Left of the Wall?"

An essay that traces the road from Everson to Nathan and stress-tests the majority's framework with hypotheticals.