Scopes ii

@article{crossref1973amicus,
    title = "AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN POPKIN CASE",
    year = "1973",
    journal = "Anthropology News",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/an.1973.14.5.13.2",
    doi = "10.1111/an.1973.14.5.13.2",
    number = "5",
    pages = "13-13",
    volume = "14"
}

@misc{broad1981creationists2,
    author = "Broad, W. J",
    title = "Creationists limit scope of evolution case",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Broad, W. J., 1981, Creationists limit scope of evolution case: Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332.}"
}

@misc{keith1982scopes3,
    author = "Keith, B",
    title = "Scopes II",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Keith, B., 1982, Scopes II: The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House.}"
}

@book{lafollette1983creationism4,
    author = "La Follette, M. C",
    title = "Creationism, Science and the Law",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {La Follette, M. C., 1983, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p.}"
}

This paper is concerned with the institutional role of courts in dealing with long term political conflict. Such conflict is likely to involve group mobilization on both sides; the analysis therefore utilizes a judicial interest group approach, presenting evidence from the on‐going policy debate surrounding presentation of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools. The findings demonstrate the importance of courts in developing public policies, not only by articulating policy, but also by affecting subsequent moves by interest groups to promote their agendas elsewhere in the system. Many extended conflicts may not be resolved in institutional settings, but they may be repetitively reformulated and translated to engage the decisionmaking process of specific forums in on‐going activities. In successive moves, each adversary attempts to shift the balance of power to its respective advantage, where, paradoxically, the parties may change sides as the debate travels full circle. The analysis also illustrates the advancement of the creation science advocates' game plan, beginning with a publicity‐oriented strategy, which is a hallmark of the relatively “amateurish” litigant, and eventually moving to a result‐oriented position, a more “professional” approach to the courts.

@article{mcintosh1985litigating,
    author = "McINTOSH, WAYNE V.",
    title = "Litigating Scientific Creationism, or “Scopes” II, III,…",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Law \& Policy",
    abstract = "This paper is concerned with the institutional role of courts in dealing with long term political conflict. Such conflict is likely to involve group mobilization on both sides; the analysis therefore utilizes a judicial interest group approach, presenting evidence from the on‐going policy debate surrounding presentation of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools. The findings demonstrate the importance of courts in developing public policies, not only by articulating policy, but also by affecting subsequent moves by interest groups to promote their agendas elsewhere in the system. Many extended conflicts may not be resolved in institutional settings, but they may be repetitively reformulated and translated to engage the decisionmaking process of specific forums in on‐going activities. In successive moves, each adversary attempts to shift the balance of power to its respective advantage, where, paradoxically, the parties may change sides as the debate travels full circle. The analysis also illustrates the advancement of the creation science advocates' game plan, beginning with a publicity‐oriented strategy, which is a hallmark of the relatively “amateurish” litigant, and eventually moving to a result‐oriented position, a more “professional” approach to the courts.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1985.tb00358.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9930.1985.tb00358.x",
    number = "3",
    pages = "375-394",
    volume = "7"
}

@misc{curiae1986amicus1,
    author = "Curiae, Amici",
    title = "Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science and 7 Other Scientific Organizations, in Support of Appellees; Edwin W",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Edwards, et al. v. Don Aguillard et al., No. 85-1513, United States Supreme Court",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Amici Curiae, 1986, Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science and 7 Other Scientific Organizations, in Support of Appellees; Edwin W. Edwards, et al. v. Don Aguillard et al., No. 85-1513, United States Supreme Court.}"
}

@article{bjorklun1988evolution,
    author = "Bjorklun, Eugene C.",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism: The Real “Scopes II” Case",
    year = "1988",
    journal = "Religion \& Public Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/10567224.1988.11488049",
    doi = "10.1080/10567224.1988.11488049",
    number = "2",
    pages = "191-199",
    volume = "15"
}

Amicus is an ad hoc group of 57 philosophers, theologians, attorneys and physicians … who teach medical ethics to medical students and physicians. The members believe that permitting competent adults to make important, personal medical decisions in consultation with their physician is a fundamental principle of medical ethics, and that the doctor-patient relationship deserves the constitutional protection the Court has afforded it under the right of privacy.

@article{annas1989brief,
    author = "Annas, George J. and Glantz, Leonard H. and Mariner, Wendy K.",
    title = "Brief For Bioethicists For Privacy as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees",
    year = "1989",
    journal = "American Journal of Law \& Medicine",
    abstract = "Amicus is an ad hoc group of 57 philosophers, theologians, attorneys and physicians … who teach medical ethics to medical students and physicians. The members believe that permitting competent adults to make important, personal medical decisions in consultation with their physician is a fundamental principle of medical ethics, and that the doctor-patient relationship deserves the constitutional protection the Court has afforded it under the right of privacy.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s0098858800012132",
    doi = "10.1017/s0098858800012132",
    number = "2-3",
    pages = "169-177",
    volume = "15"
}

@article{kessler2010best,
    author = "Kessler, Thomas and Mukherjee, Ranadeb",
    title = "Best Brief, Appellees",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Pace Environmental Law Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1643",
    doi = "10.58948/0738-6206.1643",
    number = "3",
    pages = "971",
    volume = "27"
}

@article{ashoo2011best,
    author = "Ashoo, Christina and Culpepper, Etheldreda and Wise, Neal",
    title = "Best Brief, Appellees",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Pace Environmental Law Review Online Companion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.58948/2164-9936.1004",
    doi = "10.58948/2164-9936.1004",
    number = "1",
    pages = "126",
    volume = "1"
}

@article{culpepper2013best,
    author = "Culpepper, Etheldreda and Whitman, Brian and Thompson, Kimberly",
    title = "Best Brief, Appellees",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Pace Environmental Law Review Online Companion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.58948/2164-9936.1019",
    doi = "10.58948/2164-9936.1019",
    number = "1",
    pages = "102",
    volume = "3"
}

@article{empey2013best,
    author = "Empey, Katelyn and Lancaster, David and Newsom, Courtney",
    title = "Best Brief, Appellees",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Pace Environmental Law Review Online Companion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.58948/2164-9936.1023",
    doi = "10.58948/2164-9936.1023",
    number = "1",
    pages = "83",
    volume = "4"
}

@article{chodorow2018amicus,
    author = "Chodorow, Adam",
    title = "Amicus Curiae Brief of Tax Law Professors in Support of Appellees",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "SSRN Electronic Journal",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3203100",
    doi = "10.2139/ssrn.3203100"
}

@article{crum2025brief,
    author = "Crum, Travis",
    title = "Brief of Professor Travis Crum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees/Respondents, Allen v. Milligan",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "SSRN Electronic Journal",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5440314",
    doi = "10.2139/ssrn.5440314"
}