Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler
The Supreme Court declined to hear a school board's appeal after a lower court struck down a classroom disclaimer that was read before evolution lessons, leaving that ruling in place.
Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, dissented from the denial, arguing the disclaimer merely encouraged open-minded thinking about the origin of life and did not endorse religion.
How it got here: A federal trial court and the Fifth Circuit both struck down the school board's evolution disclaimer; the board asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, which it declined to do.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Louisiana school board required teachers to read a disclaimer before lessons on evolution, stating that evolution was a theory rather than fact and reminding students they could hold their own beliefs, including biblical creation, on the subject. Parents of students in the district sued, arguing the disclaimer violated the Establishment Clause by favoring religious beliefs over the scientific curriculum.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have reviewed a ruling that struck down a school board's disclaimer read before lessons on evolution?
Why it matters
Because the Court declined review, the Fifth Circuit's decision striking down the disclaimer remains binding in that circuit, meaning schools there cannot use similar disclaimers before teaching evolution. Other school districts nationwide considering comparable disclaimers now face uncertainty, since the Supreme Court left the underlying legal question about such statements unresolved nationally.
What changes now
The Fifth Circuit's ruling striking down the disclaimer stands as binding precedent within that circuit, since the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari means it never reached the merits. School districts elsewhere may still adopt similar disclaimers, but the underlying Establishment Clause question about evolution disclaimers remains unsettled nationally until another case presents it to the Court.
What this does not decide
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and carries no precedential weight nationwide. The Supreme Court did not decide whether evolution disclaimers are constitutional; it only declined to review the Fifth Circuit's decision striking down this particular disclaimer.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argued the Court should have granted certiorari, both to reconsider the widely criticized Lemon test and because the Fifth Circuit misapplied it. He contended the disclaimer only promoted freedom of thought about the origin of life, mentioned the Biblical account merely as an illustrative example, and did not endorse religion, so the appellate court's contrary conclusion lacked textual support.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Scalia's dissent argued that even under the Lemon test's second prong, which asks whether a government action's primary effect advances or inhibits religion, the disclaimer's primary effect was to promote open-minded thinking, not to advance any religious viewpoint.
- He noted evolution was the only theory actually taught in the classroom, so the disclaimer functioned only as a caveat about that single theory rather than an endorsement of any competing religious account of life's origins.
- He observed the disclaimer mentioned the 'Biblical version of Creation' only once, as an illustrative example of an alternative concept, without elaborating on or promoting that religious view.
- Scalia concluded that reminding students of their right to hold their own or their parents' beliefs, combined with only teaching evolution in class, created no realistic danger that the school board appeared to be endorsing religion.
- He argued the Fifth Circuit's reasoning that the disclaimer improperly encouraged religious contemplation had no support in the disclaimer's actual text, making the appellate court's application of the effects test erroneous.