Legal Analysis: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.

Business Disputes: It’s What We Do

Overview of the Case

Case Citation: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Key Parties: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al., Dover Area School District, et al.
Key Issue: The case is notable for its ruling that Intelligent Design (ID) is not science and is essentially religious in nature, making the Dover school district’s policy of teaching ID alongside evolution in high school biology classes unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Background and Context of the Case

In October 2004, the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania amended its biology curriculum to require that a statement be read to students about intelligent design before the teaching of evolution.
Eleven parents of Dover students filed suit against the school district, claiming that the inclusion of intelligent design in the science curriculum violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it constituted an endorsement of religion.

Legal Issues at Stake

The primary legal issue was whether the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The secondary issue was whether intelligent design could be considered a scientific theory, and thus appropriate for inclusion in a science curriculum.

Legal Strategy of Both Sides

Plaintiffs’ Strategy:
- Argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, which the Supreme Court has previously ruled cannot be taught in public schools.
- Presented expert testimony to demonstrate that intelligent design lacks empirical support and does not follow the scientific method.
- Highlighted the religious motivations behind the intelligent design policy by pointing to statements made by members of the school board.
Defense Strategy:
- Claimed that the policy aimed to improve science education by presenting students with an alternative to evolution and fostering critical thinking.
- Asserted that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that offers an explanation for the origin of life different from Darwinian evolution.
- Attempted to distance intelligent design from its creationist roots, suggesting that it is a secular theory.

Result and Why Did the Court Make That Decision

Result: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the Dover Area School District’s policy was unconstitutional.
Rationale:
- The court found that intelligent design is not science and is a re-labeled form of creationism.
- The judge ruled that the policy had the primary effect of advancing religion and that the school board members had religious motivations for adopting the policy.
- The decision relied on the “Lemon test” from the Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which is used to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause. The policy failed all three prongs of the Lemon test: it lacked a secular legislative purpose, advanced a particular religious view, and fostered excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Kitzmiller decision was hailed by supporters of the separation of church and state and scientific education, while it was criticized by proponents of intelligent design. The ruling had a significant impact on the intelligent design movement and has deterred other school districts from pursuing similar policies.

Criteria of the Lemon Test

The Lemon test, established by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), is a three-pronged test used to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The test states that a government action is unconstitutional if it fails any of these prongs:

Secular Purpose Prong: The action must have a secular legislative purpose. That is, the primary purpose of the action must be non-religious.
Primary Effect Prong: The action’s principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; the effect must be neutral with respect to religion.
Excessive Entanglement Prong: The action must not result in an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.

The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover applied the Lemon test to assess the constitutionality of the Dover Area School District’s ID Policy.

Application of the Lemon Test in Kitzmiller v. Dover

Secular Purpose Prong:
- The court determined that the ID Policy did not have a secular purpose. The stated purpose of the policy was to promote critical thinking and improve science education by presenting an alternative to evolution. However, the court found that this was a pretext. The true purpose, as evidenced by the school board members’ statements and actions, was to promote a particular religious view, thus failing the first prong of the Lemon test.
Primary Effect Prong:
- The court also found that the ID Policy’s primary effect was to advance religion. By singling out the theory of evolution and suggesting that it is flawed in a way that necessitates consideration of a religious alternative, the policy sent a message to students that a particular religious viewpoint was more valid or credible. This had the effect of endorsing that religious view, which fails the second prong.
Excessive Entanglement Prong:
- While the excessive entanglement prong was less central to the court’s decision, the judge did note that the policy could create a division along religious lines within the school community and necessitate ongoing monitoring by the school district to ensure its religious neutrality. This could lead to an excessive entanglement of the government with religion, potentially failing the third prong.

In conclusion, the court held that the ID Policy violated the Establishment Clause because it failed at least the first two prongs of the Lemon test. The policy lacked a secular purpose and had the primary effect of advancing religion. This comprehensive application of the Lemon test led to the decision that the Dover Area School District’s ID Policy was unconstitutional. The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover is considered a landmark case because it was the first direct challenge to the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in the public school science curriculum, and the ruling had a significant impact on the debate over the separation of church and state in public education.