Segraves v. State of California |
---|
Court | Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento |
---|
Full case name | Kasey Segraves, Jason Segraves and Kevin Segraves, minors under 14 years of age, by their Guardian ad litem, Kelly Segraves, William Dannemeyer, Michael D. Antonovich, Eugene N. Ragle and Creation Science Research Center, Plaintiffs, v. State of California, Board of Education of the State of California, Department of Education of the State of California, Department of General Services, Wilson Riles, Kenneth Cory, Jessie Unruh and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. |
---|
Decided | 1981 |
---|
Segraves v. California was a 1981 Superior Court of California case concerning the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools. Kelly Segraves, a parent of three schoolchildren, sued the State of California, arguing that the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge rejected this claim and found that California's anti-dogmatism policy gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves.
Background
Kelly Segraves is a father of three and cofounder of the Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego. His three children, Kasey, Jason, and Kevin, attended a California public school, where part of the curriculum included the teachings of evolution. Segraves contended that the teaching of religion at his children's public school violated their freedom to practice religion, and thus, infringed upon their First Amendment rights.[1] Segraves sued California on behalf of his three children, who were minors at the time, on January 19, 1979.[1] Cited in Segraves's complaint is the curriculum guide "Science Framework for California Public Schools", which is said to convey the idea that "the theory of evolution is the only credible theory of the origin of [life]."[2]
The case went to trial in 1981, putting evolution and creationism on opposite sides of another courtroom battle. In court, Segraves argued that teaching the theory of evolution in public schools was "'indoctrination' and 'coercion'" against his and his children's religious beliefs and that it violated their right to religious freedom.[2] The plaintiff also argued that teaching the evolutionary theory in public schools established and supported "the religion of secular humanism", which violates the First Amendment's establishment clause.[2] Because of this assertion, Segraves also claimed that teaching evolution goes against a section of the California constitution that outlaws the spending of public money for the support of any religion in public schools.[2]
Decision
In March 1981, after one week of testimony, presiding Judge Irving Perluss ruled that the teaching of evolution in public schools did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Segraves and his children.[1] Perluss's decision included a reference to a 1972 "anti-dogmatism" policy, which states:
"The decision states that the anti-dogmatism policy should be made known to any organization or person who would receive the Science Framework for California Public Schools."[2]
The decision states that the anti-dogmatism policy should be made known to any organization or person who would receive the Science Framework for California Public Schools.[1]
References
External links
|
---|
|
---|
Public displays and ceremonies | |
---|
Statutory religious exemptions | |
---|
Public funding | |
---|
Religion in public schools | |
---|
Private religious speech | |
---|
Internal church affairs | |
---|
Taxpayer standing | |
---|
Blue laws | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Unprotected speech | Incitement and sedition | |
---|
Defamation and false speech | |
---|
Fighting words and the heckler's veto | |
---|
True threats | |
---|
Obscenity |
- Rosen v. United States (1896)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
- Roth v. United States (1957)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
- Smith v. California (1959)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
- MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
- Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
- Redrup v. New York (1967)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
- Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
- Miller v. California (1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
- Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
- Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
- American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
- United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
- Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
- United States v. Williams (2008)
- American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Stevens (2010)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
- Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
|
---|
Speech integral to criminal conduct | |
---|
|
---|
Strict scrutiny | |
---|
Overbreadth Vagueness | |
---|
Symbolic speech versus conduct | |
---|
Content-based restrictions | |
---|
Content-neutral restrictions |
|
---|
Compelled speech | |
---|
Compelled subsidy of others' speech |
|
---|
Government grants and subsidies | |
---|
Government as speaker | |
---|
Loyalty oaths | |
---|
School speech | |
---|
Public employees | |
---|
Hatch Act and similar laws | |
---|
Licensing and restriction of speech | |
---|
Commercial speech |
- Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
- Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
- Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
- Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
- Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
- Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
- In re Primus (1978)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
- Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
- In re R.M.J. (1982)
- Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
- State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
- United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
- Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
- United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
- Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
- Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
- Vidal v. Elster (2024)
|
---|
Campaign finance and political speech | |
---|
Anonymous speech | |
---|
State action | |
---|
Official retaliation | |
---|
Boycotts | |
---|
Prisons | |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Organizations | |
---|
Future Conduct | |
---|
Solicitation | |
---|
Membership restriction | |
---|
Primaries and elections | |
---|
|
|
|