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?

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. <SEP> 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. <SEP> 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 also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA “Intelligent Design Trial”(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of Education).  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. <SEP> Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp.  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.  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.  The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.