Changes

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].  The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].  The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students.

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."  <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-12-19_Sticker_Agreement.pdf  </ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."  <ref> http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>

== Criticism==

== Criticism==

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>  

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>