Edwards v. Aguillard: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:15, 18 November 2004

Latest revision as of 23:28, 16 April 2025

(382 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{short description|US Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism}}

'''''Edwards v. Aguillard''''', 482 U.S. 578 ([[1987]]) was a case heard by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].

{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2018}}

The Court ruled that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

{{Infobox US Supreme Court case

| Litigants = Edwards v. Aguillard

| ArgueDate = December 10

| ArgueYear = 1986

| DecideDate = June 19

| DecideYear = 1987

| FullName = Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard et al.

| Opinion = https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep482/usrep482578/usrep482578.pdf

| USVol = 482

| USPage = 578

| ParallelCitations = 107 S. Ct. 2573; 96 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed. 2d]] 510; 1987 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 2729; 55 U.S.L.W. 4860

| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/argument/

| Prior = 765 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/765/1251/413912/ 1251] ([[5th Cir.]] 1985)

| Subsequent =

| Holding = Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion.

| Majority = Brennan

| JoinMajority = Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens; O'Connor (all but part II)

| Concurrence = Powell

| JoinConcurrence = O'Connor

| Concurrence2 = White (in judgment)

| Dissent = Scalia

| JoinDissent = Rehnquist

| LawsApplied = [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]

}}

'''''Edwards v. Aguillard''''', 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case concerning the constitutionality of teaching [[creationism]]. The Court considered a [[Louisiana]] law requiring that where [[evolution|evolutionary science]] was taught in public schools, [[creation science]] must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, '''''Aguillard v. Treen''''', 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, '''''Aguillard v. Edwards''','' 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985). The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment]] because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."<ref name="EdwardsOpinion">{{ussc|name=Edwards v. Aguillard|volume=482|page=578|pin=|year=1987}}</ref>

In support of Aguillard, 72 [[Nobel Prize]]-winning scientists,<ref>[https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates]</ref> 17 state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations filed [[amicus brief]]s that described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

==Background==

{{Main|Rejection of evolution by religious groups|Relationship between religion and science}}

Modern American [[creationism]] arose from the [[theology|theological]] split over [[liberal Christianity|modernist]] [[higher criticism]] and its rejection by the [[fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalist Christian movement]], which promoted [[biblical literalism]] and, post 1920, took up the anti-evolution cause led by [[William Jennings Bryan]]. The teaching of [[evolution]] had become a common part of the [[state school#United States|public school]] curriculum, but his campaign was based on the idea that "[[Darwinism]]" had caused [[German militarism]] and threatened traditional religion and [[morality]]. Several states passed [[legislation]] to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution. The [[Tennessee]] [[Butler Act]] was tested in the [[Scopes trial]] of 1925, and continued in effect with the result that many schools did not teach evolution.<ref name=SM>{{cite journal |author=Scott EC, Matzke NJ |title=Biological design in science classrooms |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=104 |issue=suppl_1 |date=May 2007 |pages=8669–76 |pmid=17494747 |pmc=1876445 |bibcode=2007PNAS..104.8669S |doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

When the United States sought to catch up in science during the 1960s with new teaching standards, which reintroduced evolution, the [[creation science]] movement arose, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supporting [[young Earth creationism]]. Attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968's ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' that bans on teaching [[evolutionary biology]] are unconstitutional as they violate the [[establishment clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]], which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion.<ref name=SM/>

In the early 1980s, several states attempted to introduce creationism alongside the teaching of evolution, and the Louisiana legislature passed a law, authored by [[Louisiana State Legislature|State Senator]] Bill P. Keith of [[Caddo Parish, Louisiana|Caddo Parish]], entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act."<ref>Justice Brennan [http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=80458 misnamed the statute] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422184952/http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=80458 |date=April 22, 2014 }} as the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" in the majority decision.</ref> The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that, if evolutionary science was taught, then "creation science" must be taught as well.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=80462 |title=RS 17:286.5 |access-date=January 31, 2012 |archive-date=May 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509192151/http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=80462 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Creationists lobbied aggressively for the law. The stated purpose of the Act was to protect "academic freedom".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=80459 |title=RS 17:286.2 |access-date=January 31, 2012 |archive-date=May 8, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508151919/http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=80459 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Counsel for the state later admitted at the Supreme Court oral argument that the "legislature may not [have] used the term 'academic freedom' in the correct legal sense. They might have [had] in mind, instead, a basic concept of fairness; teaching all the evidence." [[Governor of Louisiana|Governor]] [[David C. Treen]] signed the bill into law in 1981.

The District Court in '''''Aguillard v. Treen''''', 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985), ruled against Louisiana, finding that its actual purpose in enacting the statute was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science". An Arkansas District Court previously held in a 1982 decision in ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' that a similar "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Arkansas did not appeal the loss. Creationists believed the statute at issue in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' had a better chance of passing constitutional muster, and so Louisiana appealed its loss in the trial and appellate courts to the Supreme Court.

The case was styled ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' because by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, [[Edwin Edwards]] had succeeded [[David Treen]] as governor of Louisiana, which was being sued, and Don Aguillard, a science teacher and assistant principal at [[Acadiana High School]] in [[Lafayette Parish, Louisiana]], was the lead original plaintiff in District Court among a group of Louisiana teachers, students, parents, scientists, and clergy.<ref>{{cite news |title=Creation and evolution in schools |work=St. Petersburg Times |page=4D |via=Newspapers.com |date=January 11, 1987 |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/97034445/creation-and-evolution-in-schools/ |access-date=March 6, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Louisiana Creationism Law Tested Separation |work=The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana) |page=11A |via=Newspapers.com |date=March 28, 1998 |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/97033883/louisiana-creationism-law-tested/ |access-date=March 6, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Acadiana duo claims awards |work=The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette, Louisiana) |page=16 |via=Newspapers.com |date=May 24, 1987 |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/97034798/acadiana-duo-claims-awards-daily/ |access-date=March 6, 2022}}</ref>

==Result==

On [[June 19]], [[1987]], the Supreme Court, in a seven-to-two majority opinion written by Justice [[William J. Brennan|Justice William J. Brennan]], ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged [[Lemon v. Kurtzman|''Lemon'' test]]., Lemonwhich was an infamous jew who would often question governmental actions. I think I got you guys this time?? Maybe not... Yea i got you b itches this time mother funk ers.is:

# The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

# The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

# The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

The Supreme Court held that the Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose (first part of the above ''Lemon'' test), since (a) the Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom", and (b) the Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.<ref name="EdwardsOpinion"/>

However, it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:

The{{blockquote|We Courtdo rulednot imply that "teachinga legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.&nbsp;... Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school childrenschoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."<ref name="EdwardsOpinion"/>}}

The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom", that purpose was 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".<ref name="EdwardsOpinion"/>

==Dissent==

Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], joined by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose.<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Evolution and Creation Science |title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |edition=2nd |editor=Kermit L. Hall |first=Carol |last=Weisbrod |year=2005 |isbn=9780195176612 |publisher=Oxford |page=305}}</ref> They interpreted the term "academic freedom" to refer to "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also criticized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist".<ref name="EdwardsOpinion"/>

==Consequences and aftermath==

The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the [[separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]]. The scope of the ruling affected public schools and did not include independent schools, [[homeschooling|home schools]], [[Sunday school]]s and [[Christian school]]s, which remained free to teach creationism.

During the case, creationists worked on a creationist biology textbook, with the hope of a huge market if the appeal went their way. Drafts were given various titles, including ''Biology and Creation''. After the ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' ruling, the authors changed the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text to "[[intelligent design]]" and "design proponents", and the book was published as ''[[Of Pandas and People]]''. This supplementary textbook for school use attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the "[[intelligent designer]]".<ref>{{cite web |series=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |title=Trial transcript: Day 1 (September 26), AM Session, Part 1 |website=talkorigins.org |url=https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am12}}</ref> Promotion of intelligent design creationism by the [[intelligent design movement]] eventually led to the textbook's use in a school district being challenged in another court case. ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139-page opinion of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

[[Wendell Bird]] served as a special assistant attorney general for [[Louisiana]] in the case and later became a staff attorney for the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and [[Association of Christian Schools International]].<ref>{{cite news | title=Creationist lawsuit against UC system to proceed |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] |date=August 10, 2006 |url=https://ncse.ngo/creationist-lawsuit-against-uc-system-proceed |access-date=November 12, 2009}}</ref> Bird later authored books promoting creationism and teaching it in public schools.

==See also==

In the early [[1980s]], the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act."

* [[Scopes trial]]

The Act did not require teaching either [[creationism]] or [[evolution]], but did require that when one theory was taught, the other theory had to be taught as well.

Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law.

==References==

Opponents argued that the Act violated the [[First Amendment]]'s [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution#Establishment of religion|Establishment Clause]], which prohibits the Government from officially endorsing a [[religious belief]]. (See [[Separation of church and state]].)

{{Reflist}}

The State argued that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers.

==Further reading==

Lower courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of [[scientific creationism]] (known also as creation science).

*{{cite journal |last=Blewett |first=Paul F. |year=1987 |title=''Edwards v. Aguillard'': The Supreme Court's Deconstruction of Louisiana's Creationism Statute |journal=Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy |volume=3 |pages=663 |issn=0883-3648}}

On [[June 19]] [[1987]] the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by [[William J. Brennan|Justice William J. Brennan]], ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged [[Lemon v. Kurtzman|Lemon test]]. Lemon was an infamous jew who would often question governmental actions. I think I got you guys this time?? Maybe not... Yea i got you b itches this time mother funk ers.

*{{cite journal |last=McClellan |first=V. F. |year=1988 |title=''Edwards v. Aguillard'': The Creationist-Evolutionist Battle Continues |journal=Oklahoma City University Law Review |volume=13 |pages=631 |issn=0364-9458}}

*{{cite journal |last=Moore |first=Randy |year=2004 |title=How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution? |journal=BioScience |volume=54 |issue=9 |pages=860–865 |s2cid=86808937 |doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0860:HWDBTU]2.0.CO;2 |doi-access=}}

==External links==

==Quotes from Court Ruling==

* {{caselaw source

| case=''Edwards v. Aguillard'', {{ussc|482|578|1987|el=no}}

| cornell=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578

| courtlistener=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111924/edwards-v-aguillard/

| googlescholar=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3232659778662846156

| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html

| loc=http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep482/usrep482578/usrep482578.pdf

| oyez=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-1513

}}

{{Creation Science}}

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42, 101 S.Ct., at 194. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2583 (U.S.La.,1987).

{{Religion vs. evolution cases}}

{{US1stAmendment Establishment Clause Supreme Court case law}}

{{Creationism topics}}

[[Category:CreationismAmerican Civil Liberties Union litigation]]

[[Category:U.S.Establishment church-state separationClause case law]]

[[Category:U.S.Public education casein lawLouisiana]]

[[Category:U.S.United SupremeStates Courtcreationism casesand evolution case law]]

[[Category:FirstUnited AmendmentStates caseSupreme lawCourt cases of the Rehnquist Court]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]

[[Category:1987 in religion]]

[[Category:1987 in United States case law]]

[[Category:Academic freedom case law]]