Jefferson County Faces Legal Challenge Over Ten Commandments Display
By Michael Krempski
Illinois is currently at the center of a recurring national debate about displaying the Ten Commandments on public property. The Ten Commandments Monument, displayed on the lawn of the Jefferson County, Illinois, Courthouse, is facing a legal challenge. The Monument sits near the public entrance to the facility, which is used for a variety of public services. People ex rel. Neal v. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (Case No. 2025MR37) was filed on Monday, June 9, 2025, in the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Jefferson County. The plaintiffs claim that the monument, prominently displayed on government property, violates “separation of church and state” as outlined in Article I, Section 3, and Article X, Section 3, of the Illinois Constitution. They contend that the use of public funds and property to promote a specific religious doctrine is unconstitutional. According to the petition filed, “They [the plaintiffs] object to public money and property being used to propagate scripture, and to send the religiously divisive message that those in Jefferson County who do not subscribe to the specific religious doctrine the Monument represents are second-class residents.” The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, the national ACLU, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The lawsuit, filed as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, seeks a court order directing the removal of the monument and prohibiting further use of public resources for religious displays.
Illinois State Senator Terri Bryant, who represents Jefferson County in the 58th District, has strongly voiced her support for the continued display of the Ten Commandments monument on the Jefferson County Courthouse lawn. In response to the legal challenge, Senator Bryant issued a statement staunchly defending the monument. She emphasized that the principles represented by the Ten Commandments have "long played a role in shaping the foundation of our legal and civic institutions." According to Bryant, these principles reflect "a moral code centered on responsibility, fairness, and respect for others." Senator Bryant further argued that "public displays like this one have existed in communities across the country for decades, and many people view them as part of our shared heritage and values." She expressed her belief that "local communities should have the right to recognize the principles that have helped guide our society" and pledged to "continue to support the people of Jefferson County as they work to preserve this monument and what it represents." Senator Bryant's firm stance underscores a broader sentiment among Americans who view such monuments as reflections of foundational American values and historical tradition. These displays serve to reinforce civic pride, promote a historical understanding of America’s foundational principles, and provide a moral grounding within the community. They reflect aspects of our shared heritage that contribute to the moral fabric of our society since its inception.
State Senator Terri Bryant Website Homepage (June,19,2025), [Screenshot by Yorkville Herald], https://senatorbryant.com/
Pyramid Marble and Granite, in Effingham, Illinois, created and installed the monument. The monument, with the heading “Ten Commandments,” depicts two stone tablets marked with Roman numerals I through X. Each numeral is paired with an inscription referencing biblical verses (King James Version) from Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21. These verses outline the law God gave to Israel on how to live as a holy nation, distinct from the surrounding pagan cultures. Jackson County Sheriff Jeff Bullard has been the driving force behind the display. Sheriff Bullard said, “The idea of the monument at the courthouse has been on my heart since I was first elected in 2018.” Sheriff Bullard goes on to explain why the monument was erected: “The monument is a symbol of our nation’s system of justice, founded in Mosaic Law. It is a reminder of our heritage, that being one of law and order.” One of the two inscriptions at the base of the monument reads, “THIS HISTORICAL SYMBOL REPRESENTS THE ORIGINS AND FOUNDATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
The Ten Commandments hold immense historical significance in the United States, influencing its legal system, moral discourse, and national identity. Early American colonists, who sought religious freedom, viewed the Bible, especially the 10 Commandments, as a foundational source of law and morality. The United States Supreme Court prominently displays Moses and the Ten Commandments. [1] Moses, the revered prophet and lawgiver of the Old Testament, represents the fundamental moral and legal principles of American law. Joseph Story, “Father of American Jurisprudence,” one of the most renowned constitutional scholars in American history, U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by President James Madison, and U.S. Congressman to Massachusetts, said, “I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law... There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.” [2] The Illinois Supreme Court expressed a similar opinion in the 1883 case of Richmond v. Moore:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. [3]
The last inscription (which was later covered up) is a Bible verse that Sheriff Bullard felt was how the Old Testament describes the results of justice. The inscription reads, “When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to the evildoers.” [Proverbs 21:15]
Sheriff Jeff Bullard, June 21, 2026, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/share/1ANx2xAtKx/?mibextid=wwXIfr
The monument was first installed in the lobby of the Jefferson County Courthouse, located at 100 South Tenth Street, Mount Vernon, Illinois, on August 23, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the monument was moved outside to the south lawn of the facility, where it currently stands. According to Jefferson County documents (agenda & minutes), formal approval of the move was discussed and voted on at the Jefferson County Board meeting on October 28, 2024. The cost of the monument was financed entirely through private donations from churches, businesses, and citizens. “No taxpayer money was used for the monument project,” said Sheriff Bullard. As the "Custodian of the Courthouse," per the Illinois statute (55 ILCS 5/3‑6017), Sheriff Bullard utilized the “chirper” fund to pay for the relocation of the monument from inside the courthouse to the lawn outside the facility. The funds are not commissary and are under the authority of the sheriff. Sheriff Bullard explained that the funds are “commissions gained through inmates at the Jefferson County Jail using texting or ‘chirper’ devices. These funds are not part of any county budget and are not collected or maintained by the Treasurer. These funds are collected and maintained by the company that supplies the ‘chirper’ devices, being Combined Public Communications.” Since they are not commissary funds, they are not required to be used for inmate services. Jefferson County has utilized these funds for projects such as advanced employee training, equipment, and employee events. In 2022, the funds were also used to repair the Veterans Memorial display in the courthouse. The suit claims that approximately $4,900 of public funds, along with resources, were used in the governmental promotion of religion.
“I believe the monument properly represents our nation's heritage and is in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), “ said Sheriff Bullard. In 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, Chief Justice William Rehnquist recognized the historical meaning of the Ten Commandments:
We need only look within our own Courtroom. Since 1935, Moses has stood, holding two tablets that reveal portions of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, among other lawgivers in the south frieze. Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn the metal gates lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom as well as the doors leading into the Courtroom. Moses also sits on the exterior east facade of the building holding the Ten Commandments tablets. Similar acknowledgments can be seen throughout a visitor's tour of our Nation's Capital. For example, a large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul, has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress' Jefferson Building since 1897. And the Jefferson Building's Great Reading Room contains a sculpture of a woman beside the Ten Commandments with a quote above her from the Old Testament (Micah 6:8). A medallion with two tablets depicting the Ten Commandments decorates the floor of the National Archives. Inside the Department of Justice, a statue entitled ‘The Spirit of Law’ has two tablets representing the Ten Commandments lying at its feet. In front of the Ronald Reagan Building is another sculpture that includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments. So, too, a 24-foot-tall sculpture, depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments and a cross, stands outside the federal courthouse that houses both the Court of Appeals and the District Court for the District of Columbia. Moses is also prominently featured in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives. [4]
Since 2022, the courts have abandoned the Lemon Test in favor of the History and Tradition Test, which will now allow First Amendment rulings to reflect the original intent of our founders. It was the 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case that effectively ended the use of the Lemon Test for evaluating government actions that might violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The court ruled, essentially, that Coach Kennedy could pray on the publicly funded Bremerton High School football field because his actions did not amount to the establishment of a state church. [5] In another landmark 2022 case, Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the US Supreme Court ruled that potential violations of the Establishment Clause should be evaluated by reference to historical practices and understandings. The court also ruled, in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, that flying a Christian flag on the Boston City Hall flagpole did not establish a state church. Justice Gorsuch explained the following in his 2022 Shurtleff v. City of Boston opinion:
Historical hallmarks provide helpful guidance for those faced with future disputes. As a close look at these hallmarks and our history reveals, no 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. For most of its existence, this country had an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life. In fact and as we have seen, it appears that, until Lemon, this Court had never held the display of a religious symbol to constitute an establishment of religion.
The following questions reflect the six hallmarks relied upon for determining if an action violates the Establishment Clause, using the founding-era religious establishment traits that are now utilized by the Supreme Court when applying the History and Tradition Test:
• First, did the government exert control over the doctrine and personnel of the established church?
• Second, did the government mandate attendance in the established church and punish people for failing to participate?
• Third, did the government punish dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise?
• Fourth, did the government restrict political participation by dissenters?
• Fifth, did the government provide financial support for the established church, often in a way that preferred the established denomination over other churches?
• And sixth, did the government use the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving the established church a monopoly over a specific function? [6]
The Establishment Clause is ONLY intended to limit the federal government by keeping it from establishing a state church.
In my opinion, this case is the equivalent of asking the courts to step in and demand that we stop saying the sky is blue, or gender is binary, or that the courthouse restrooms are down the hall and to the left. It’s just plain fact that the biblical Ten Commandments, not the ‘Protestant’ Commandments or the ‘Catholic’ Commandments, but the BIBLICAL Ten Commandments, form the basis for the American legal system. The government of Illinois was formed by people who openly acknowledged this and codified it into the Preamble to the Illinois Constitution. According to the Preamble to the Illinois Constitution, the people formed Illinois with gratitude toward the “Almighty God ” of the Bible, and we are relying upon, “His blessings… to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people; to maintain a representative and orderly government; to eliminate poverty and inequality; to assure legal, social, and economic justice; to provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; to ensure domestic tranquility; to provide for the common defense; and to secure freedom and liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” That’s a long list of very important things for which we rely upon His blessing. [7]
Yorkville Herald will continue to follow and report on this case.
Endnotes
[1] "Building Features," accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildingfeatures.aspx
[2] Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), II:8.
[3] Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883).
[4] Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
[5] Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022)
[6] Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243, 142 S. Ct. 1583 (2022)
[7] "Illinois Constitution," accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm.