## Facts

- The Dover Area School Board adopted a policy requiring ninth-grade biology students to be told that evolution has “gaps” and that “intelligent design” (ID) is an alternative explanation for life’s origins.
- The mandated statement characterized evolution as “a theory,” asserted that it is “not a fact,” and claimed “gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.”
- The statement directed interested students to the book *Of Pandas and People* to learn about ID.
- Biology teachers refused to read the statement; school administrators read it to students instead.
- Parents of enrolled students sued the school district and board members, alleging the policy promoted a religious view and violated federal and state constitutional protections.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial in federal district court.

## Issues

1. Whether the policy requiring a classroom statement presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
2. Whether the policy violated Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

## Decision

- The court held the policy unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- The court found that intelligent design is not science and cannot be separated from creationist, religious origins.
- Applying the Lemon test and the endorsement framework, the court concluded the policy lacked a genuine secular purpose and had the primary effect of advancing religion.
- The court permanently enjoined the school district from maintaining the policy, requiring the statement, or otherwise promoting ID as an alternative to evolution in the science curriculum.

## Legal Principles

- Government action in public schools must have a secular purpose; a religious purpose violates the Establishment Clause.
- Government action must not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or endorsing religion.
- A policy presenting a religious doctrine as scientific instruction, or singling out evolution to steer students toward a religious alternative, constitutes unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
- Courts may consider context and history, including drafting and implementation evidence, to determine whether “secular” rationales are pretext for religious objectives.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Dover’s intelligent design statement functioned to advance a religious view in a public school science class, failing Establishment Clause requirements and Pennsylvania’s religious-freedom protections, and permanently barred the district from continuing the policy.


Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)