Webster v. New Lenox School District | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
Full case name | Ray Webster v. New Lenox School District No. 122, et al |
Argued | February 27 1990 |
Decided | November 6 1990 |
Citations | 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1990) 63 Ed. Law Rep. 749 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 88-C-2328 (N.D. Ill.) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Joel Martin Flaum, Frank H. Easterbrook, Kenneth Francis Ripple |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ripple, joined by a unanimous court |
Laws applied | |
First Amendment |
Webster v. New Lenox School District, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1990) [1] was a court case in Illinois, in which a social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class. [2] [3] The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case the teaching of "creation science" was illegal, having been ruled to violate the establishment clause in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). [4]
The case hinged on the school district's "pedagogical interest in establishing the curriculum and legitimate concern with possible establishment clause violations".
Webster appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's original decision deciding "teaching creation science for any reason was a form of religious advocacy." [4]
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a unanimous landmark United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught. These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard.
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.
Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID), ultimately found by the court to not be science. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.
Larry Caldwell, a pro-intelligent design activist and attorney, has been active in bringing litigation in causes supporting the intelligent design movement. Caldwell along with his wife, Jeanne Caldwell a Christian school teacher who "takes the Bible literally" previously operated Quality Science Education for All, and are currently appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment suit against the University of California, Berkeley.
The intelligent design movement has conducted an organized campaign largely in the United States that promotes a pseudoscientific, neo-creationist religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes centering on intelligent design.
Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517, was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism". The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions. It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists. Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320, was a United States court case in Cobb County, Georgia involving a sticker placed in public school biology textbooks. The sticker was a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." The plaintiffs were parents of children in Cobb County schools who claimed the sticker violated both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state clause in the Georgia State Constitution because its purpose and effect was to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory in order to promote religious beliefs in the schools.
Willoughby v. Stever, 504 F.2d 271 was an American legal decision in a case brought by evangelist William Willoughby against the National Science Foundation director H. Guyford Stever and the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado for using taxpayer money to fund textbooks developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) because they included evolution instruction. Willoughby claimed the pro-evolution curriculum was by extension also promoting secular humanism as the "official religion of the United States," and thus violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. Willoughby accused scientists of "intellectual snobbery", and opposed tax revenues going to support education offensive to his religious views. He argued that creationist education should be given the same tax payer funding as evolution education.
Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. She previously served as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Robert David Sack is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 486 F.2d 137 was an American legal case brought by a parent of a student in the Houston Independent School District in Houston, Texas suing on behalf of her daughter and fellow students to prevent the district from teaching evolution as fact and without reference to alternative theories. The plaintiffs claimed evolutionary theory endorsed a secularist religious view, and argued the school's failure to incorporate the teaching of a particular religious alternative to evolutionary theory as derived from the Bible's creation account held that religious view up to ridicule and contempt. To allow evolution while avoiding creationism was unconstitutional, the suit claimed, because it advanced one particular sectarian view over another. The plaintiffs maintained that the school's evolutionary teaching constituted "the establishment of a sectarian, atheistic religion" and was an interference of their own rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The case is one of a series of legal battles over the teaching of evolution in American public schools, and the first to be initiated by opponents of such teaching.
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F.3d 337 was United States federal court case on the constitutionality of a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution.
Segraves v. California was a 1981 Superior Court of California case concerning the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools. Kelly Segraves, a parent of three schoolchildren, sued the State of California, arguing that the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge rejected this claim and found that California's anti-dogmatism policy gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves.
Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066, was a 1991 legal case in which Phillip A. Bishop, an exercise physiology professor at the University of Alabama, sued the college on free speech and academic freedom grounds, when it instructed him not to teach "intelligent design theory" in an extracurricular class and not to lecture on "evidences of God in Human Physiology" in class. The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found in favor of Bishop but the university appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the classroom, during instructional time, was not an open forum, and that the university had a right to set the curriculum.
LeVake v. Independent School District 656 was a 2000 court case heard in a Minnesota State District Court and appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The case was brought by high school biology teacher Rodney LeVake who had been told by the Faribault Public Schools that he could not teach the "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. After learning that he wanted to teach "criticisms of evolution" to his pupils, school officials reassigned him to teach a different class.
In American schools, the Genesis creation narrative was generally taught as the origin of the universe and of life until Darwin's scientific theories became widely accepted. While there was some immediate backlash, organized opposition did not get underway until the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy broke out following World War I; several states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution while others debated them but did not pass them. The Scopes Trial was the result of a challenge to the law in Tennessee. Scopes lost his case, and further U.S. states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution.