|
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
482 U.S. 578
Edwards v. Aguillard
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-1513 Argued: December 10, 1986 --- Decided: June 19, 1987
Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of
evolution in
public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by
instruction in the
theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching
of either
theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the
scientific
evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those
scientific
evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and
religious
leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District
Court,
seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court
granted summary
judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the
Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment
Clause of the
First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp.
585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of
"protecting academic
freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what
they choose,
and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence."
Forbidding the
teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught
undermines the
provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover,
requiring the
teaching of creation science with evolution does not give
schoolteachers a
flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the
present science
curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution,
about the
origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a
"basic
concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the
evidence on the
subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory
preference
for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of
evolution by
requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services
supplied for
teaching creationism, but not for teaching evolution, by limiting
membership on
the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by
forbidding school
boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation
scientist"
or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who
choose to teach
other theories or who refuse [p579] to teach creation science. A law
intended to
maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science
instruction would
encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human
origins. Instead,
this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting
evolution by
counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of
creationism.
Pp. 586-589.
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the
religious belief
that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history
demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by
the state
legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary
purpose was to
change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive
advantage to a
particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of
evolution in its
entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of
creation
science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit
the teaching
of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In
either case,
the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594.
2. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon
a finding
that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact. Appellants
relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists,
theologians, and an
education administrator defining creation science as "origin through
abrupt
appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint
constitutes a
true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion,
properly
concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts
concerning the
possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate
the
contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the
Act. None of
the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants
participated in or
contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596.
765 F.2d 1251, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL,
BLACKMUN,
POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in all but Part II of which
O'CONNOR, J.,
joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR,
J., joined,
post, p. 597. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the
judgment, post, p.
608. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST,
C.J., joined,
post, p. 610. [p580]
|
