Jerred Vidal

POL4420
Term 1

ANATOMY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE

Edwards v Aguillard
482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Background:

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". The Act

did not require teaching 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. Lower courts had

ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation

science", but the State appealed to the Supreme Court.1

Issue:

The issue in question was whether the act enacted by the Louisiana state legislature

violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

In order to determine whether an act violates the Establishment Clause, the court

routinely applies the Lemon test (from Lemon v Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602):

1. The legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose.

1
“Edwards v Aguillard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Accessed Oct 12, 2007.
 2. The statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor

inhibits religion.

3. The statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with

religion.2

It is ruled that an act or statute violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any

of these prongs.

Ruling:

Justice Brennan delivered the 7-2 majority ruling with Justices Scalia and

Rehnquist dissenting that the act constituted an infringement on the Establishment

Clause.3 However, the court did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught.

Relevant Constitutional References:

First Amendment and Lemon v Kurtzman

Reasoning:

The act failed to uphold the first prong of the Lemon Test. Even though the State

had argued that the act was for academic freedom, Brennan reasoned that the act did not

give more freedom than had existed before. In fact, that act restricted freedom by

requiring creation science be taught alongside evolutionary theory, promoting religion.

Justices Scalia and Rehnquist dissented on the grounds that protecting academic

freedom was an earnest secular purpose, thus upholding the first prong of the lemon test.4

Impact:
2
“Edwards v Aguillard, 482 US 578” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 Accessed Oct 15, 2007
3
Ibid.
4
“Edwards v Aguillard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Accessed Oct 12, 2007.
 Since the ruling (indicative of Judicial Restraint) did note that alternative theories

could be taught, the creation of intelligent design ensued. Intelligent design attempts to

creation in the hands of an intelligent designer with all gaps in present evolutionary

theory filled by the design of this intelligent designer. Intelligent Design was ruled a

religious teaching and not science in Kitzmiller v Dover School District (04 CY 2688

2005)

Analysis:

This case was considered a landmark case in the never-ending battle between

creationists and evolutionists. It was considered the case that allowed the development of

Intelligent Design (ID). Since the court had specifically stated that alternative scientific

theories could be taught, creationists quickly changed their literature to incorporate a

more “scientific” approach to creationism. This lead to creation of ID in the early

1990’s. ID seems to be the last best hope for creationist to incorporate their doctrine into

public school education.

Bibliography
1. “Edwards v Aguillard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard.
Accessed Oct 12, 2007.
2. “Edwards v Aguillard, 482 US 578”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 Accessed Oct 15, 2007