Edwards v. Aguillard

• Decision Date: 19 June 1987
• Docket Number: No. 85-1513,85-1513
• Citation: 96 L.Ed.2d 510,107 S.Ct. 2573,482 U.S. 578
• Parties: Edwin W. EDWARDS, etc., et al., Appellants v. Don AGUILLARD, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

482 U.S. 578

107 S.Ct. 2573

96 L.Ed.2d 510

Edwin W. EDWARDS, etc., et al., Appellants

v Don AGUILLARD, et al.

No. 85-1513.

Argued Dec. 10, 1986.

Decided June 19, 1987.

Syllabus

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 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 counter-balancing 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 statelegislature, 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 statelegislature 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(CA 51985), 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. ----.WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. ----.SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post, p. ----.

Wendell R. Bird, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Jay Topkis, New York City, for appellees.

Justice BRENNANdelivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction"Act(Creationism Act), La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 17:286.1-17:286.7(West 1982), is facially in-

Justice O'CONNOR joins all but Part II of this opinion valid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I

The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science."§ 17:286.4A.No school is required to teach evolution or creation science.If either is taught, however, the other must also be taught.Ibid.The theories of evolution and creation science are statutorily defined as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences."§§ 17.286.3(2) and (3).

Appellees, who include parents of children attending Louisiana public schools, Louisiana teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the constitutionality of the Act in District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief.¹Appellants, Louisiana officials charged with implementing the Act, defended on the ground that the purpose of the Act is to protect a legitimate secular interest, namely, academic freedom.²Appellees attacked the Act as facially invalid because it violated the Establishment Clause and made a motion for summary judgment.The District Court granted the motion.Aguillard v. Treen,634 F.Supp. 426(ED La.1985).The court held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations.The court further concluded that "the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects."Id., at 427(citingEpperson v. Arkansas,393 U.S. 97, 106, 89 S.Ct. 266, 271-72, 21 L.Ed.2d 228(1968)).The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine.

The Court of Appeals affirmed.765 F.2d 1251(CA51985).The court observed that the statute's avowed purpose of protecting academic freedom was inconsistent with requiring, upon risk of sanction, the teaching of creation science whenever evolution is taught.Id., at 1257.The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."Ibid.Because the Creationism Act was thus a law furthering a particular religious belief, the Court of Appeals held that the Act violated the Establishment Clause. A suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied over a dissent.778 F.2d 225(CA51985).We noted probable jurisdiction, 476 U.S. 1103, 106 S.Ct. 1946, 90 L.Ed.2d 355(1986), and now affirm.

II

The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion."³The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause.First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose.Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.Lemon v. Kurtzman,403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745(1971).⁴ State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs.

In this case, the Court must determine whether the Establishment Clause was violated in the special context of the public elementary and secondary school system.States and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools.SeeBethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser,478 U.S. 675, 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 3164, 92 L.Ed.2d 549(1986);id., at 687, 106 S.Ct., at 3166(BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment);Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 731(1969)."At the same time . . . we have necessarily recognized that the discretion of the States and local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment."Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico,457 U.S. 853, 864, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 2806, 73 L.Ed.2d 435(1982).

The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance...