Selman v. Cobb County School District
2004 United States court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Selman v. Cobb County School District?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006), was a United States court case in Cobb County, Georgia involving a sticker placed in public school biology textbooks. The sticker was a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things."[1] The plaintiffs were parents of children in Cobb County schools who claimed the sticker violated both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state clause in the Georgia State Constitution because its purpose and effect was to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory in order to promote religious beliefs in the schools.[2]
Selman v. Cobb County School District | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
Decided | May 25, 2006 |
Citation | 449 F.3d 1320 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (reversed and remanded) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Edward Earl Carnes, Frank M. Hull, William H. Pryor, Jr. |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Carnes |
Trial was held in November 2004. In January 2005, Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Cobb County School District, finding the stickers violated both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions. He ordered a permanent injunction against schools from disseminating the stickers in the textbooks or any other form. The decision was appealed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which found that they could not assess the lower court case due to gaps and rampant confusion about the evidence apparent in the case record, thus preventing proper appellate review of the constitutional issues. The original decision, in May 2006, was remanded back to the lower district court for new evidentiary inquiry and factfindings.[2] The case was ultimately settled out of court in favor of the plaintiffs.