The federal court found him in violation of the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
For several decades, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment was incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Even our current conservative justices in the SCOTUS consider the First Amendment as binding to the states.
In order to give the powers back to the states, we need to appoint judges who do not think that the First Amendmend applies to the states.
Finding such judges will be difficult. Once a branch of government has grabbed power, it will not let go easily. That's why federal judges, even conservative Supreme Court Justices, will continue to rule that the First Amendment applies to the states, and they will continue to decide state issues using the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
So you want to flush the First Amendment?
I'd rather keep it, thank you very much.
From the 14 th amendment, "priviledges and immunites" are found only in the Constitution and the laws passed by US Congress. Article 5 of the Constitution states "...amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution..." so amendments ARE the constitution.
If the 14th amendment didn't stretch those rights to the states then the only place inside the United States that you would be guaranteed those rights would be in Washington D.C.
So because of the 14th, now the state "Congress" can make no law respecting establishment religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof. It still doesn't say the courts (judicial fiat) can't do it or the Governor (executive order) can't do it.
What prevents the President, the Governors and the Courts from these branches having that power? Article 1 of the US constitution "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" the US Congress has the overall legislative authority. They have given the President and the courts certain and specific legislative powers (judicial fiat and executive orders) and I don't know of a single act passed by Congress giving other branches authority to violate the first amendment.
We need judges that will read the Constitution as it says word for word rather than pretending it says something else. If anyone was in violation of the 1st amendment it was the court that issued the judicial fiat to remove the ten commandments. They do not have the power to do such until Congress gives them that power.
We've learned that the US Congress cannot prohibit freedom of religion and the Constitution doesn't grant legislative authority to anyone but Congress. We also learn that all powers not delegated to the US government are reserved to the states. The US constitution does not give the SCOTUS power to prohibit freedom of religion.
So by the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And since the 14th amendment prevents the states from violating "priveledges and immunities", no one anywhere can legislate against free exercise of religion.
Only by the Necessary and Proper Clause could Congress grant legislative power to another branch giving them authority to violate the first amendment since Congress themselves expressly cannot do it.