Judge rules in favor of cheerleaders Bible verse banners

This transcript is automatically generated

Fox News alert -- verdict just came down in a case that aim to keep got off the gridiron or any sports feel for that matter.

And it appears that god has won.

A group of Texas high school cheerleader sued after being told they could not display their Bible verses during football games.

And now know after losing initially have we're told -- what is.

The ruling mean.

The breaking news headline here -- is the cheerleaders have won again the judges that issued another temporary injunction so that means that these banners will be allowed through out the entire school year because the next hearing is not until.

The middle of June at the end of the school year and then both sides can come and present more evidence if they so -- And that's when the decision would be may never member of the better for the ones that football team would run through the beginning of the game it could high school which is about nine miles.

Outside of Houston right they would say things like you've got -- what does.

Who can be against us freedom from religion the atheist group argued that violated the separation of church and state.

But the -- attorney argued that shareholders have a right to express their religious believes they were doing this totally on their -- Not on behalf of the school and they have the right to do that and today the judge agreed with them saying yes indeed.

The banners will -- so tomorrow night at the football game -- -- expect to see the -- back up.

Texas governor Rick Perry the attorney general in Texas also came out in support of this and today.

They all appear to be winners big victory.

-- -- that's significant legally we're gonna talk about that now -- thank you.

-- -- back in session on the docket today that biblical banner.

And how -- these Jewish just one and they -- right.

To have -- displayed on the sideline this could have implications beyond this district folks.

Joining me now Fox News legal analyst please -- and a defense attorney and former prosecutor Marc I -- Our -- let me start with you on this.

Explain the rule it.

Essentially they sit there and there's no issue with with the separation of powers they really focused on the freedom of religion which isn't our First Amendment that the very clearly.

We have the freedom of religion.

So the court decided and says look there expressing their personal religious beliefs it is not school sanctioned where the issue of whether this establish and -- separation of church and state.

It came can be triggered although there's lots of argument that that the doesn't and because they have this inalienable right under the First Amendment.

They won and -- great.

-- the but there was a 2000 Supreme Court case mark.

That seemed to go directly against them I mean how did the court -- tell tells about anti habit to how the court reconcile it.

I'm -- blown away candidly I absolutely think this is going to be completely short lived it is a violation of the constitution in my -- is a legal one.

This is -- there government speech or school sponsored speech.

Either way it's unlawful and let me say for those were not -- the rise in the active legal argument again and morally the right and I know that against you may.

Right nick -- for the signs that say praise all law and god doesn't exist go wild -- But that's -- listen personal mark where the constitution does -- say anything about separation of church and they.

Now where oh where does say is freedom of -- creamed -- that's the -- -- -- you look at the constitution look it has been interpreted in various ways.

By -- by the courts.

And this is where the court from right line instead where does -- say that it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution when it talks about though you look at at the Genesis of the constitution.

He's the embarrassment of religion it's different the founders had -- -- -- I'm trying to get on the school.

-- which which said to -- apparently caved -- said -- you can't do it.

They argued look this Supreme Court decision from 2000.

Held that so that.

That a school -- -- policy of allowing student led and student initiated prayer at football games.

Violated the establishment clause because it gave the impression of school -- -- of prayer and that's what the school used to say -- -- -- this.

Out of state.

Atheist group that wants us to stop these banners.

That and -- the whole thing doesn't make any sense Mercedes is wonderful she's not only attractive but she's Smart and her Arkansas and everywhere -- But but but those arguments were already made in front of the Supreme Court they said we -- interpreting the constitution to mean XY and Z.

And that means you don't offend groups like atheists Hindus Muslims you just keep it off the.

I know it's a student led him if it's student led Mercedes and how long is it is a -- sponsored me that's like this students.

Is that when the students is walking down the hall saying -- hail Mary.

Is this so different from that is that not you can't do that.

And that's and that's exactly -- the court ruled in favor that she really is what I walk around with my crock summit says is that something fun and school.

Or my children does that mean somehow I actually pretty soon now and again and it could be I mean this is what's good and to be ridiculous.

But -- the freedom of religion it's in the constitution if you look at it as a strict constructionist there is nothing in the -- why is it.

None of the -- -- why do you say that that that the Connecticut student walking and causing a hot hail Mary is not the same as these students putting up a banner.

Because -- intertwined with school it gives the impression and it actually is supported by this.

-- there's an illegal Barak ballgame what about the pledge of Atlantans don't we say the Clinton -- tense when you're in school under one nation under god.

What about every time you make you pay for something it says in god we trust in every bill that you have in your.

Why make this -- -- they -- not clear.

Let me make this clear as this makes its way up the appellate court it will be reversed.

What's what's wrong -- it would you would we rather have.

Society in which the kids can go out with their signs that say.

Follow -- loves the tigers rank and you know.

No god loves the tigers and the girls with a -- saying you know god loves tiger would we rather have that's -- site is ready which.

Nothing can ever be mentioned Mercedes I think it is -- now be able to express their religion as they see fit these feelings are.

Quote I want to express their religious beliefs god bless them that's wonderful the judge agreed.

Comes at the lab to be done.

And I don't grand tomorrow night I don't think that confidence and I think now gonna look just admit it.

Yes that's on a moral level now not legal and there's nothing wrong with love.

Peace and happiness I'm all in favor of those messages however what you specify a particular religion.

That's where you cross the line enough that the supremes have -- in the anti -- and I know.

Getting out I guess now that -- -- if they can panel thanks Megan coming up next a.

Watch Live

Judge rules in favor of cheerleaders Bible verse banners

Details

Clips

America Live

Celebrity chef Nigella Lawson's husband admits to assault

Man gets mad over service at Wendy's drive-thru

State Dept. whistle-blower claims harassment for speaking

Importance of 911 audio on George Zimmerman case

Oklahoma meteorologist to blame for tornado deaths?

IRS supervisor acknowledges examining Tea Party cases

Immigration reform: DUI deaths shine light on bill

Texas mom fights off carjacker holding kids at knifepoint

Teacher let go due to ex-husband's abuse at school

FBI director unable to answer questions on IRS investigation

Did president hold up his promise to help West, Texas?

Who's tracking Google while Google tracks you?

Transcript

Recommended