Does the Arkansas Attorney General have an opinion on whether Act 573 of 2025 (Ten Commandments classroom posters) is constitutional or whether universities have to grant religious accommodations from it?

Plain-English summary

University of Arkansas System President Jay Silveria asked the AG four questions about Act 573 of 2025 and required Ten Commandments posters. They concerned the Act's constitutionality as applied to public higher education, possible religious discrimination against employees or students, and whether a university is required or authorized to remove a poster as a religious accommodation for an employee or a student.

The AG declined to answer every question because litigation was pending that could directly affect them. He cited the office's practice of withholding opinions on matters before the courts. A footnote identifies Stinson v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1 as the pending case. The AG referred the requester to a brief he had filed in the Eighth Circuit and said its arguments show his belief that Act 573 is constitutional. He gave no opinion on whether any requested accommodation is required, authorized, or prohibited.

What this means for you

If you administer a public university

This opinion supplies no rule for deciding whether to remove a poster for an employee or student. The university asked that question directly, and the AG declined it. His stated view that Act 573 is constitutional is a litigation position referenced in the response, not an answer to the accommodation questions.

If you are an employee or student considering an accommodation request

The opinion does not determine your institution's authority or obligation to grant it. It also does not say the institution has discretion to grant or deny it. Those were the unresolved questions sent to the AG.

Common questions

Did the AG conclude that Act 573 is constitutional?

He stated that he believes it is and pointed to his Eighth Circuit brief. He declined to issue an opinion on the legal questions presented because of pending litigation.

Did he answer the employee or student accommodation questions?

No. Both questions asked whether the university was required and authorized to remove a poster in response to an objection. He declined to opine on both.

Why did the AG decline?

He said the outcome of pending litigation could directly affect the issues and cited his office's long-standing practice of not opining on matters before courts for resolution.

Background and statutory framework

The request named the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, Title VII, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act as possible grounds for its questions. The opinion does not analyze those provisions. Its legal disposition is the decision to decline because of pending litigation, with Stinson identified in a footnote.

Citations and references

Statutes and laws:

• Act 573 of 2025 (Arkansas)
• U.S. Const. amend. I (Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses)
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• A.C.A. § 16-123-601 et seq. (Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993)

Cases:

• Stinson v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 5:25-cv-05127 (W.D. Ark., filed June 11, 2025), pending Eighth Circuit appeal

Companion AG opinions on the decline-on-pending-litigation policy:

• Op. 2025-043
• Op. 2016-027
• Op. 2010-047

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-112

January 20, 2026

President Jay B. Silveria
University of Arkansas System
2404 North University Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207

Dear President Silveria:

You have requested my opinion regarding the legal obligations of an Arkansas public institution of higher education under Act 573 of 2025. You have asked these questions:

1. Is Act 573 constitutional as applied to a public institution of higher education under the
  Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
  Constitution?

2. Does it constitute unlawful religious discrimination against employees or students who are
  atheistic, agnostic, or followers of religions other than Protestant Christianity under federal
  law (such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) or state law (such as the Arkansas
  Civil Rights Act of 1993 or A.C.A. § 16-123-601 et seq.) for an institution of higher
  education to conduct classes and other activities in rooms where posters of the Ten
  Commandments have been installed pursuant to the Act?

3. Under state or federal law, where a poster required under the Act has been installed in a
  classroom, library, or other space where an employee of the institution works, is an
  Arkansas public institution of higher education legally required and authorized to grant a
  religious accommodation of removal of the poster for an employee who objects to the
  presence of the poster because it conflicts with the sincerely held religious or personal
  beliefs of the employee?

4. Under state or federal law, where a poster required under the Act has been installed in a
  classroom, library, or other space where a student takes classes or studies, is an Arkansas
  public institution of higher education legally required and authorized to grant a religious
  accommodation of removal of the poster for a student who objects to the presence of the
  poster because it conflicts with the sincerely held religious or personal beliefs of the
  student?

                          BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
                              101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
                            LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

President Jay B. Silveria
University of Arkansas System
Opinion No. 2025-112
Page 2

RESPONSE

I must respectfully decline to opine on your questions because of pending litigation,1 the outcome of which could directly affect the issues you raised. It is the long-standing policy of the Office of the Attorney General, as a member of the executive branch, to decline to opine on matters that are pending before the courts for resolution.2 Please see the attached brief I recently filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As the arguments in the brief make clear, I believe Act 573 is constitutional.

I regret that I cannot be of further assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of future assistance in some other respect.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

1
See Stinson v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 5:25-cv-05127 (W.D. Ark.), filed June 11, 2025.
2
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-043, 2016-027, 2010-047 (stating that the Office of Attorney General does not issue opinions related to pending litigation).