Wright v. Houston Independent School District

Last updated
Wright v. Houston Independent School District
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameRita Wright et al., Plaintiffs, Leona Weber, acting as next

friend for Rita Wright, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, John R. Brown, Sr., Individually, etc., et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v.

The Houston Independent School District et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Contents

DecidedOctober 10, 1973
Citation(s)486 F.2d 137
Case history
Prior historyDismissed, 366 F. Supp. 1208, (S.D. Tex. August 3, 1972).
Subsequent historyRehearing en banc denied, November 30, 1973; cert. denied, June 1974; dismissal affirmed
Holding
The teaching of evolution does not constitute establishment of secular religion; religious protections do not require shielding those from views they find incompatible with their religion; it would be unwarranted intrusion for courts to compel schools to balance curriculum with alternative theories; District Court decision affirmed
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Irving Loeb Goldberg, Charles Clark, Paul Hitch Roney
Case opinions
Per curiam
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, amend. XIV

Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973) [1] 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. [2] The plaintiffs claimed evolutionary theory endorsed a secularist religious view, [2] 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. [3] 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. [1] 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. [2]

The suit was dismissed prior to trial, the presiding judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas finding Wright had "wholly failed to establish the analogy" [3] between the teaching of evolution and an establishment of religion. The Court held:

Plaintiffs' case depends in large measure upon their demonstrating a connection between "religion," as employed in the first amendment, and Defendants' approach to the subject of evolution. The Court is convinced that the connection is too tenuous a thread on which to base a first amendment complaint. [3]

The judge, Woodrow B. Seals, outlined three findings. He found the Houston school district was not following any policy to promote secularism. Further, he found the free exercise of religion did not include any such right to be shielded from scientific theories which are incompatible with a particular religious belief. And he rejected the plaintiffs' proposal that the school district be court ordered to provide "equal time" in the curriculum for alternative theories, finding such an order would constitute unwarranted intrusion into the district's affairs. [3] [2]

Wright appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1973 the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court decision dismissing the suit. [1] In June 1974 the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and later lawsuits involving restrictions and impositions on evolution in school curricula reaffirmed the Wright decision. [2]

Related Research Articles

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."

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Lemon was a major precedent in federal and local courts until it was effectively overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a 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.

<i>Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County</i>

Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, was a lawsuit in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Mobile County Public School System could use textbooks which purportedly promoted "secular humanism", characterized by the complainants as a religion.

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.

<i>McLean v. Arkansas</i> 1981 legal case in the US state of Arkansas

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, was a 1981 legal case in the US state of Arkansas.

<i>Glassroth v. Moore</i>

Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, and its companion case Maddox and Howard v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that held a 2+12 ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama by then-Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case which established limits on freedom of religion in the United States.

<i>Dettmer v. Landon</i> 1986 United States court case

Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929, is a court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that although Wicca was a religion, it was not a violation of the First Amendment to deny a prisoner access to ritual objects.

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.

<i>Daniel v. Waters</i>

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.

<i>Selman v. Cobb County School District</i> 2004 United States court 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.

<i>Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education</i> 1997 court case in Louisiana

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."

<i>Able v. United States</i> American legal case

Able v. United States, 88 F.3d 1280, 155 F.3d 628, is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that upheld the Don't ask, don't tell law against various constitutional challenges. Both Able I and Able II overruled district court decisions striking down "Don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.

Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), held that when the U.S. government provides an "open forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian organization.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 486F.2d137 (5th Cir.1973).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Moore, Randy (2002). Evolution in the courtroom: a reference guide. ABC-CLIO. p. 381. ISBN   978-1-57607-420-6.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 366F. Supp.1208 (S.D. Tex.1972).