The Wording of the Act

The court found that if "evolution" was "understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type", then:

"... this Act's title clearly indicates the purpose of the Statute to be the prohibition of teaching in the Schools of the State that man has developed or descended from some lower type or order of animals:"

'... to teach any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.'

They also commented that:

The Right of the State to Determine the Content of a School Lesson

"The Statute before us is not an exercise of the police power of the State undertaking to regulate the conduct and contracts of individuals in their dealings with each other. On the other hand, it is an Act of the State as a corporation, a proprietor, an employer. It is a declaration of a master as to the character of work the master's servant shall, or rather shall not, perform."

After citing numerous precedents the court stated that:

"These cases make it obvious ... that the State or Government, as an incident to its power to authorize and enforce contracts for public services, may require that they shall be carried out only in a way consistent with its views of public policy, and may punish a departure from that way. ... Since the State may prescribe the character and the hours of labor of the employees on its works, just as freely may it say what kind of work shall be performed in its service, what shall be taught in its schools, ..."

A Duty to "Cherish Science"

On this matter, relating to article 12, section 11 of the Tennessee constitution, the appeal court came to the conclusion that:

"... [the 'duty to cherish science'] is too vague to be enforced by any court."

So that:

"If the Legislature thinks that, by reason of popular prejudice, the cause of education and the study of Science generally will be promoted by forbidding the teaching of evolution in the schools of the State, we can conceive of no ground to justify the court's interference."

Religious Preference

On this subject the court decided that they were:

"... not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. So far as we know, the denial or affirmation of such a theory does not enter into any recognized mode of worship."

Noting that "the act of 1925 deals with nothing but the evolution of man from a lower order of animals", the court neatly tied off this part of the appeal on the basis that:

"It is not necessary now to determine the exact scope of the Religious Preference clause of the Constitution and other language of that section.  The situation does not call for such an attempt."

Why was the Act Passed?

As to the motives of the Tennessee politicians who voted for the Act, such as Governor Peay's statement that the Act would probably never be put to the test, the members of the Supreme Court simply refused to accept this as being relevant to the appeal:

"Much has been said in argument about the motives of the Legislature in passing this Act. But the validity of a statute must be determined by its natural and legal effect, rather than proclaimed motives."

Setting the Fine

At this point in the 'decision' it seemed as though the ACLU team might still be able to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court.  But then the axe fell.  The members of the Tennessee Supreme court successfully brought the whole affair to a grinding halt with one simple manoeuvre.  It is worth reporting this section of the decision in full:

Laid to Rest - On a Technicality

And so the Scopes Trial was - legally speaking - laid to rest.  The Tennessee Supreme Court added this recommendation to their ruling:

"The Court is informed that the plaintiff in error [Scopes] is no longer in the service of the State.   We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case.  On the contrary, we think the peace and dignity of the State, which all criminal prosecutions are brought to redress, will be better conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein.   Such a course is suggested to the Attorney-General."

Frank Thompson, the Tennessee Attorney-General did just as the Supreme Court advised, and it is this introduction of a nolle prosequi that seems to confuse many commentators.

Roughly translated, nolle prosequi means "do no pursue," and indicates that the party which enters the nolle prosequi no longer wishes to continue with the proceedings (at this time).  In the case of the Scopes Trial, since the entry of nolle prosequi followed the reversal of the result of the original trial, after the nolle prosequi the slate was wiped clean, and the situation was the same as if 'the State' had yet to enter a charge.

But it isn't quite as simple as it sounds.  When the Tennessee Supreme Court "reversed" the result of the original trial they didn't find Scopes "not guilty."  Their decision only meant that he was no longer "guilty" - which isn't the same thing at all.  Likewise, as one legal expert commented:

"The troublesome feature of this power is that the nolle prosequi does not clear the accused of guilt and the accused remains vulnerable to prosecution for the same crime."

In other words, Scopes was not protected by the law against "double jeopardy" (which says that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence), since from a purely legal perspective the first trial never took place.
No wonder Scopes took the first opportunity to escape from this invidious position by accepting an offer, financed by some of the expert witnesses, to study geology far, far away at - the University of Chicago!