Epperson v. Arkansas
393 U.S. 97 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that prohibits the teaching of a scientific theory in public schools solely because it conflicts with a particular religious doctrine violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The government must remain neutral in matters of religion and may not tailor its curriculum to the principles of any single religious sect.
Facts:
- In 1928, Arkansas enacted a statute making it illegal for any teacher in a state-supported school to teach the theory that humans evolved from a lower order of animals or to use a textbook teaching that theory.
- Susan Epperson was a 10th-grade biology teacher at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.
- For the 1965-1966 academic year, the Little Rock school administration adopted and prescribed a new biology textbook that included a chapter setting forth the theory of evolution.
- Epperson was contractually required to use the prescribed textbook for classroom instruction.
- Teaching the chapter on evolution would subject Epperson to criminal prosecution and dismissal from her teaching position under the 1928 state statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Epperson filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Arkansas (state trial court), seeking a declaration that the state's anti-evolution statute was unconstitutional.
- The Chancery Court ruled in favor of Epperson, holding that the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The State of Arkansas, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas (state's highest court) reversed the trial court in a two-sentence opinion, upholding the statute as a valid exercise of the state's power to specify school curriculum.
- Epperson, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arkansas state law making it unlawful for a public school teacher to teach the theory of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fortas
Yes. The Arkansas statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because its sole purpose is to advance a particular religious belief. The law selects a specific scientific theory for prohibition for the exclusive reason that it is deemed to conflict with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, as held by a particular religious group. The First Amendment requires that government be neutral in matters of religion, and this law is not neutral; it actively aids a specific religious dogma by suppressing a conflicting scientific view. Applying the test from Abington School District v. Schempp, the statute fails because its purpose is not secular but religious, making it an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Concurring - Justice Black
The statute should be struck down on vagueness grounds rather than on the Establishment Clause. The law is unconstitutionally vague because a teacher cannot know whether it prohibits any mention of Darwin's theory or only forbids teaching the theory as true. Deciding on vagueness grounds would avoid the Court's deeper intrusion into the sensitive area of state school curricula. The majority's Establishment Clause reasoning raises difficult questions about whether the state must now permit the teaching of 'anti-religious' doctrines and involves an improper inquiry into the legislature's motives.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
The statute constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The majority opinion is correct in its Establishment Clause holding. However, the opinion is weakened by its lengthy exploration of vagueness and free speech issues, which it ultimately does not use as the basis for its decision. This discussion obscures the otherwise straightforward holding and creates unnecessary implications.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
The statute is invalid because it is unconstitutionally vague. While a state is free to set its curriculum, it cannot make it a criminal offense for a teacher to simply mention the existence of an entire system of respected human thought. Because the Arkansas Supreme Court did not clarify whether the law forbids all mention of evolution, a teacher is left guessing what is prohibited. This uncertainty violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Analysis:
This landmark decision invalidated 'anti-evolution' statutes on Establishment Clause grounds, reinforcing the principle of government neutrality toward religion in public education. The Court established that a state's power to set school curricula is not absolute and cannot be used to censor scientific information to conform to the tenets of a particular religion. This case set the precedent for later challenges to laws requiring the teaching of 'creation science' or 'intelligent design,' as courts following Epperson would scrutinize the legislative purpose behind such laws to determine if they were a pretext for promoting religion.
Unlock the full brief for Epperson v. Arkansas