brief 10 - unconstitutional? Holding: Reversed. (The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) Facts:  An anti-evolution statute was adopted in 1928 by the state of Arkansas. This statute  prohibited teaching in public schools, the theory that man evolved from other species of animal.  Susan Epperson, a teacher, claimed that her freedom as a school teacher was diminished. The  Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled in favor of the state, upholding the anti-evolution statute.  The case was appealed to the United State Supreme Court. Issue: Did the anti-evolution statute violate Susan Epperson’s freedom as a school teacher  under the Free Exercise Clause? Is prohibiting a teaching because of religious offense 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: unconstitutional? Holding: Reversed. (The anti-evolution law was unconstitutional) Reasoning: The court realized without a doubt that the anti-evolution statute was enacted by Arkansas because the theory of evolution is contrary to Christian beliefs. The court agreed that while the state could prescribe certain curriculum, the state did not have the right to prohibit the teaching of scientific theories. It was clear that Arkansas did not have a religious neutrality, and this violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/25/2012 for the course BLAW 1310 taught by Professor Hale during the Fall '11 term at Texas State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online