I.
Background
The following facts are taken from plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) and viewed in the light
most favorable to them. S.E.C. v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir. 2014) (“We accept as
true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most
favorable to the [plaintiffs].” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). On June 11, 2013,
the Kansas State Board of Education adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (“the
Standards”)4 and the related Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts and Core Ideas (“the Framework”).5 Plaintiffs allege that the Kansas State Board of
Education’s adoption of the Framework and Standards will cause Kansas public schools to
establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview in violation of the Establishment, Free
Exercise, and Speech Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Framework and Standards take impressionable
children, beginning in kindergarten, into the religious sphere by leading them to ask ultimate
religious questions such as “what is the cause and nature of life and the universe—‘where do we
come from?’” Pls.’ Compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs assert that the Standards fail to inform
4 Plaintiffs incorporate the Standards into their Complaint by reference and state that the Standards
are available at
http://www.nextgenscience.org/. Pls.’ Compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 1. Defendants have submitted
the Standards as an exhibit to their Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30, Ex. B)
(hereinafter, “Standards”).
5 Plaintiffs incorporate the Framework into their Complaint by reference and state that the
Framework is available at
http://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165#. Pls.’ Compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 1.
Defendants have submitted the Framework as an exhibit to their Memorandum in Support of their Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 30, Ex. A) (hereinafter, “Framework”).
3
children objectively about the actual state of our scientific knowledge on these questions in an age appropriate and religiously neutral manner. Instead, plaintiffs claim the Standards use an “Orthodoxy,” called methodological naturalism or scientific materialism, which requires that explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena only use natural, material, or mechanistic causes, and must assume that supernatural and teleological or intelligent design conceptions of nature are invalid. Plaintiffs contend that the Standards do not adequately disclose this “Orthodoxy” and use other deceptive methods to lead impressionable children to answer questions about the cause of life with only materialistic or atheistic answers. Plaintiffs characterize this “Orthodoxy” as “an atheistic faith-based doctrine.” Id. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs argue that the purpose of teaching this Orthodoxy is to indoctrinate children by establishing a non-theistic religious worldview rather than delivering an objective and religiously neutral origins science education.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the implementation of the Framework and Standards and ask the Court to enter a declaratory judgment finding that the Framework and Standards violate: (1) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (2) the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; (3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also seek relief in the alternative, requesting an injunction prohibiting defendants from implementing the portions of the Framework and Standards that seek to teach about the origin, nature, and development of the cosmos and life on earth (“origins science”) for children in kindergarten through grade 8 entirely and for grades 9 through 12 unless the origins science instruction also includes additional information such as: “an evidence-based teleological alternative competes with the materialistic explanations
