Establishment Clause, Edwards v. Aguillard

[A18]

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (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: The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.

JUDGES: 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. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined.

[Emsworth]

Unsound.

Of course, states are not constitutionally permitted to compel students to receive religious instruction. Requiring a student to attend Sunday School (for example) would violate the establishment clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Louisiana law in this case, however, does not even begin to approach a violation of the establishment clause. It merely requires that, when the theory of evolution is presented to students, "scientific evidences" for creation should be presented as well. The state is not instilling religion in the students, but merely presenting competing theories.

I do not think that "creationism" should be dignified by being called a "science." On the contrary, I feel that it is an extremely unscientific notion. However, it is not for the Supreme Court to determine what is or is not scientifically valid. The content of science curricula is a matter of purely legislative judgment.