• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIATAMMY KITZMILLER, et al.: Case No. 04cv2688:Plaintiffs:Judge Jones:v.::DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,::Defendants.:
MEMORANDUM OPINIONDecember 20, 2005INTRODUCTION:
On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directorspassed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:Students will be made aware of gaps/problems inDarwin’s theory and of other theories of evolutionincluding, but not limited to, intelligent design.Note: Origins of Life is not taught.On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced bypress release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to readthe following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover HighSchool:The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require studentsto learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 139
 
2
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolutionis a part.Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to betested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is nota fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is noevidence. A theory is defined as a well-testedexplanation that unifies a broad range of observations.Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of lifethat differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who mightbe interested in gaining an understanding of whatIntelligent Design actually involves.With respect to any theory, students are encouraged tokeep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and theirfamilies. As a Standards-driven district, class instructionfocuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiencyon Standards-based assessments.
A.Background and Procedural History
On December 14, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the instant suit challenging theconstitutional validity of the October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004press release (collectively, “the ID Policy”). It is contended that the ID Policyconstitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by theFourteenth Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 139
 
1
Defendants again argue that certain Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims shouldtherefore be dismissed. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs Eveland and Sneath lack standing because their claims are not ripe, based upon the age of their children. Defendantsoriginally asserted this argument in submissions regarding their previously filed Motion toDismiss. In our March 10, 2005 Order disposing of such Motion, we discussed that issue indetail and held that Plaintiffs Eveland and Sneath should not be dismissed based upon ripenessgrounds. (Rec. Doc. 41 at 21-23). We have been presented with no reason to alter our priorruling in this regard.3
costs, and attorneys’ fees.This Court’s jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 42U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the power to issue declaratory judgments is expressedin 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction overPlaintiffs’ cause of action arising under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this District under28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because one or more Defendants reside in this District, allDefendants reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the events oromissions giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in this District.For the reasons that follow, we hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutionalpursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United StatesConstitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
B.The Parties to the Action
We will now introduce the individual Plaintiffs and provide informationregarding their acquaintance with the biology curriculum controversy.
1
Tammy
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 3 of 139
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...