Question: John F. Haught testified at the Supreme Court case that was the first direct challenge to the school policy requiring the teaching of what concept?

Context articles: Peloza v. Capistrano School District
Brown v. Maryland
Epperson v. Arkansas
John F. Haught
Lau v. Nichols
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Engblom v. Carey
George Anastaplo
Dent v. West Virginia
Board of Education v. Earls

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir.
 1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".
 The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision "Edwards v. Aguillard".
 One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.
 It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists.
 Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.)
 419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation.
 The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products.
 Brown was charged under this law and appealed.
 It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause.
 Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the import-export and commerce clauses and the federal law was supreme.
 He alleged that the power of a state to tax goods did not apply if they remained in their "original package".
 A license tax on the importer was essentially the same as a tax on an import itself.
 Despite arguing the case for Maryland, future chief justice Roger Taney admitted that the case was correctly decided.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.
 The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
 The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.
 These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard".
John F. Haught is a Distinguished Research Professor at Georgetown University.
 He specializes in Roman Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion.
 He has authored numerous books and articles, including "Science and Faith: A New Introduction" (2012), "Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and The Drama of Life" ( 2010), "God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens" (2008), "Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature" (2007), "Is Nature Enough?
 Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science" (2006), "Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life" (2004), "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution" (2000, 2nd ed.
 2007), "Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation" (1995), "The Promise of Nature: Ecology and Cosmic Purpose" (1993, 2nd ed.
 2004), "What is Religion?"
 (1990), "What is God?"
 (1986), and "The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose" (1984).
 In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in 2008 a “Friend of Darwin Award” from the National Center for Science Education.
 He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA “Intelligent Design Trial”(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of Education).
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the disparate impact caused by the school policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the school district was demanded to provide students with "appropriate relief".
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp.
 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.
 In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that "Of Pandas and People", a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book.
 The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier.
 The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir.
 1982), "on rem."
 572 F. Supp.
 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), "aff'd.
 per curiam" 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir.
 1983), was a court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
 It is the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner[.]"
George Anastaplo (November 7, 1925 – February 14, 2014) was a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and author who was famously denied admission for many years to the Illinois Bar.
 The denial of his admission became a Supreme Court case, In re Anastaplo, in which he insisted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of political affiliations; in particular, he refused to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party.
 Anastaplo's stand was based on Constitutional principles and consequent rejection of McCarthyism, and nobody alleged that he had membership in the Communist Party.
 The Supreme Court's majority upheld the lower courts' ruling in favor of the Illinois Bar, although Justice Hugo Black dissented.
 After his Supreme Court case and denial of admission to the Bar, Anastaplo supported his family by teaching at the University of Chicago and other universities and colleges.
 He wrote many articles and books on philosophy, many of which acknowledged the influence of his teacher, Leo Strauss.
Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889) , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the reputable practice of physicians and state laws in the late 19th century.
 It was a direct challenge to West Virginia having passed "the nation's first genuinely restrictive physician licensing law in the early 1880s."
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing by public schools of students participating in extracurricular activities.
 The legal challenge to the practice was brought by two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their families against the school board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.