NEW ORLEANS — A portrait of Jesus hanging alone in the foyer of a Louisiana courthouse was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled this week, siding with civil libertarians who sued over the display.

In a ruling filed yesterday, U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle agreed to award “nominal” damages plus attorneys fees and costs to plaintiffs in the case against Slidell City Court, filed by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

During a hearing last September, Lemelle said he would have ordered court officials to remove the Jesus icon if they hadn’t already expanded the display to include portraits of other historical “lawgivers,” including Moses, Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Lemelle, whose written decision this week echoes his earlier verbal ruling, said the expanded display is constitutional because a reasonable observer wouldn’t see it as sending a religious message.

However, Lemelle concluded that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated by the original display, which depicted Jesus presenting the New Testament above the words, “To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.”

“Context” is the “crucial factor” in determining if a religious display is unconstitutional, Lemelle wrote in a ruling that was signed by the judge on April 14 but wasn’t filed until yesterday.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in its 2005 ruling in Van Orden v. Perry that a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol was constitutional, in part, because it was accompanied by other monuments and historical markers, Lemelle noted.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate 2005 case, McCreary County v. ACLU, that a different Ten Commandments display in Kentucky was unconstitutional because county officials there had “specifically expressed their intent to erect and maintain a religious display,” Lemelle wrote.

J. Michael Johnson, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who represented the Slidell court, said he was disappointed by Lemelle’s ruling and might file an appeal.

The Supreme Court, Johnson added, has ruled that “simply having religious content in a public display does not render the display unconstitutional.”

“It’s unfortunate that the ACLU seems to be on a search-and-destroy mission for all things religious,” he said.

Marjorie Esman, the ACLU chapter’s executive director, said Lemelle’s decision appears to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings in similar cases.

“We’ve always felt that this was a very clear-cut case,” she said. “There was no need to break new ground on this.”

Last year, the ACLU sued the city of Slidell, City Judge James Lamz and St. Tammany Parish on behalf of an unidentified person who complained about the original display. Esman said the ACLU’s objections were satisfied by the expansion of the display.

Lemelle gave the plaintiffs 10 days to propose a “reasonable” award for attorneys fees and costs. The ACLU has asked for a mere $1 in damages.