Difference between revisions of "Epperson v. Arkansas"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(copy edit, wikify) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Justices [[Hugo Black]], [[John Harlan II]] and [[Potter Stewart]] concurred in the judgment, each writing a separate concurrence. Justice Stewart, for example, would have invalided the statute on vagueness grounds. | Justices [[Hugo Black]], [[John Harlan II]] and [[Potter Stewart]] concurred in the judgment, each writing a separate concurrence. Justice Stewart, for example, would have invalided the statute on vagueness grounds. | ||
| − | + | ==See also== | |
| + | *[[Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions]] | ||
| + | ==External links== | ||
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393_0097_ZS.html Full text of case] | * [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393_0097_ZS.html Full text of case] | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:54, December 13, 2020
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), is a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that an Arkansas law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment:
- it is unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory.
Violation of this law was a misdemeanor and subjected the violator to dismissal from his position.
Justice Abe Fortas wrote the opinion for the Warren Court, and was joined by five other Justices. His reason was that "Arkansas' law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality."
Justices Hugo Black, John Harlan II and Potter Stewart concurred in the judgment, each writing a separate concurrence. Justice Stewart, for example, would have invalided the statute on vagueness grounds.