Legal Issues

• Science vs. Intelligent Design: The Law
  Professor Dennis D. Hirsch, Capital University Law School
• Is It Science Yet? The Constitutional Problems with Intelligent Design
  Professor Steven G. Gey, Florida State University College of Law
  

Santorum Amendment

• Creationism Advocates Tout Dead Santorum Amendment
• Kennedy Objects to Santorum Misrepresentation

Legal Opinions Relevant to the Creationism Controversy

• U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
  This case was the first salvo in the modern legal debate over creationism. Arkansas was one of many states that passed a law in the 1920s that banned the teaching of evolution in state-supported schools. In 1967, Arkansas schoolteacher Susan Epperson faced disciplinary action for teaching evolution in her high school biology classes. She sued on the grounds that the state statute was unconstitutional. While the state courts ruled against her, the United States Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The Epperson ruling declared that laws which simply banned the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional.
• U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
  In 1969, a Rhode Island law offering extra pay to certain schoolteachers was challenged in court on the grounds that in practice the extra pay went almost exclusively to teachers in Catholic schools. The resulting case led to what is now called the "Lemon test" for judging whether a law violates the First Amendment's religion clause. If a law or regulation fails the Lemon test, then it's unconstitutional.
• U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision: Daniel v. Waters (1975)
  In 1973, the state of Tennessee pioneered the tactic of requiring "equal time" in biology classes for creationism and evolution. A number of people and groups united to fight this law. In 1975, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Lemon test and ruled that the Tennessee law violated the First Amendment.
• U.S. District Court Decision: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1981)
  In 1981, the state of Arkansas passed Act 590, which explicitly required the teaching of "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. The law was immediately challenged in court by an alliance of scientists, teachers, and mainstream religious leaders, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ensuing trial of McLean v. Arkansas before US District Court Judge William Overton became a classic for the power of the pro-science testimony and the total collapse of the creationist side. Overton's widely-reprinted decision said that creationist laws which ordered "equal time" for teaching creation and evolution were unconstitutional. The State did not appeal, so Judge Overton's ruling stood. A private group is currently working on transcribing as much as possible of the McLean trial court transcript into electronic form.
• U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
  The state of Louisiana also passed an "equal time" law in 1982. Like Arkansas' Act 590, the Lousiana law required that "scientific creationism" be given equal time with evolutionary theory in public school science classes. This case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and became the definitive ruling on "equal time" laws, as Epperson was on bans of evolution. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court concurred with lower court opinions and ruled all "equal time for creationism" laws unconstitutional.
• U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1993)
  In 1993, creationist John Peloza, a California public school biology teacher, sued the Capistrano school district on the grounds that evolutionary theory was a religious belief, and that forcing him to teach it was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit Court dismissed the claim as baseless, because evolutionary theory is not religious in any way. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court flatly denied the creationist claim that the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins defined "secular humanism" as a religion.
• U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1999)
  In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education decided to require that all biology textbooks and study courses which mentioned evolution must include a disclaimer stating that evolution was a scientific theory and "not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept." A group of parents sued the board on First Amendment grounds, saying that the disclaimer violated freedom of religion. The district court decided in the parents' favor. The board of education appealed to the Court of Appeals, which confirmed the District Court's decision and struck down the disclaimer as a violation of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals did not generalize its decision to cover all anti-evolution "disclaimers." However, its critique of the Tangipahoa BOE's disclaimer is equally devastating to the disclaimers adopted in several other states and school districts.
• U.S. District Court Decision: Selman v. Cobb County School District (2005)
  In September 2002, the school board for Cobb County, Georgia, directed that an anti-evolution disclaimer be included in all biology textbooks purchased for use within the school district. A group of parents promptly sued the school district, claiming that the disclaimer violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution, as well as a similar section in the Georgia state constitution. After a bench trial that focused heavily on the religious motivations of the Cobb County school board, US District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and directed that the sticker be removed.
• U.S. District Court Decision: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
  In October 2004, the Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District's school board voted to require that science teachers include "other theories such as intelligent design" in the classroom. A group of Dover parents filed suit against this policy, alleging that it violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The ensuing trial became the most thoroughly documented exploration of the evolution-creationism controversy since McLean v. Arkansas. It ended with a crushing victory for the forces of science and reason, as US District Court Judge John E. Jones III ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on every point and issued an order expressly forbidding the teaching of "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms. In addition to the decision itself, a gargantuan collection of court exhibits, briefs, court documents, and trial testimony transcripts is available.
• U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision: Selman v. Cobb County School District (2006)
  The Cobb County School Board decided to appeal Judge Cooper's ruling. After hearing the appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there were some serious anomalies and questions concerning evidence introduced in the trial. The appeals court didn't reverse Judge Cooper's ruling. Rather, they set it aside and directed Judge Cooper to revisit the matter. If the evidence problems can be cleared up easily, then Judge Cooper can simply file an addendum to his ruling. If not, then the case will have to be re-tried. At the moment (summer 2006), the case is again pending before Judge Cooper. However, now Judge Cooper has an option he didn't have before: to apply his fellow judge's very thorough and devastating ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover to the Cobb County case. Further information is available here.