Edwards v. Aguillard [Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al v. Aguillard et al]
Before the Supreme Court of the United States 482 U.S. 578, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, presiding.
Argued: December 10, 1986
Decided: June 19, 1987
Vote: 7 to 2. Majority opinion by Justice Brennan, dissent by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist.
Ruling: Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion.
Background:
Issues of evolution versus creationism had been introduced into states’ legislatures through legislation from creationist activists. Opponents of creationism countered by having the courts abolish such legislation on the basis that they violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion. The creation science movement arose during the 1960s, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supporting young earth creationism. Critics in the mainstream scientific community–including many Christians–denounced the movement and its underpinnings as pseudoscience lacking any evidential basis whatsoever. Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) had ruled that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional.
In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law entitled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science in Public Instruction Act”. The Act did not require teaching of either creationism or evolution, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, the creation science had to be taught as well. The state argued that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers. Creationists lobbied particularly aggressively for the law.
When challenged, lower courts ruled that the state’s actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of creation science; the District Court issued a summary judgment, but the state appealed to the SCOTUS. It was not the first such appeal; but the previous one, McLean vs. Arkansas, in which the lower courts ruled against creationism, was not appealed to the national courts. Creationists believed they had a better chance to prevail in Edwards vs. Aguillard; so, they marshaled their best personnel and arguments and appealed to SCOTUS who–for the first time–agreed to hear a case about the merits of creationism vs. evolution.
The SCOTUS majority opinion by Justice Brennan was based on the three-pronged Lemon test and ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Brennan stated that it was clear that legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith’s, purpose was to narrow the science curriculum thereby undermining the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Senator Keith testified before the legislature that evolution violated his own personal religious beliefs. The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated its purpose to be to protect academic freedom, it was deemed dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state’s proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a “preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute”.
Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented. They accepted the Act’s stated purpose of protecting academic freedom as being sincerely secular, construing the term, academic freedom, to refer to “students’ freedom from indoctrination” to decide for themselves how life began, based on a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence. In a telling observation, the two justices criticized the first prong of the Lemon test because it was not possible to find with finality the sole purpose of even a single legislator let alone the entire voting body. The ruling of the Appeals Court was affirmed.
Consequences:
The ruling only affected state schools. Independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools, and Christian schools remained free to teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, was produced. The book attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed ‘intelligent designer’. Early drafts had used the terms ‘creation’ and ‘creator’, and they were removed in favor of the more benign and scientific sounding ID terminology. Clearly, the contest was not over. Further cases, most employing the Lemon test, included:
Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)
Bishop v. Aronov (1991)
Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)
Hellend v. South Bend Community School Corporation (1996)
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997)
Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania (1998)
LeVake v. Independent School District 656 (2000)
The most important and attention riveting case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which grew out of the continuing controversy, was to become the putative landmark decision. The 139 page opinion by the presiding judge was hailed as a definitive presentation of the cogent arguments for both opinions and regarding the law. Most scholars and legal experts thereafter have conceded that creationism or intelligent design were religious teachings, not legitimate scientific research or conclusions, and The Theory of Evolution was uncontested legitimate science in the view of the overwhelming majority of modern biological and other interested scientists.