The article says one of the clerks hinted that the ruling is very long.
Sounds like he's coming up with some kind of split decision.
I'm betting he frames it similarly to a "nativity creche" or a "ten commandments" ruling.
As long as the controversy is packaged with other controversies surrounding it, then it will be OK.
Just a guess, of course.
That or he knows whatever decision he makes will be widely read and critiqued and will be subjected to appellate review, so he must ensure that his legal reasoning is flawless. He doesn't want to be overturned on appeal, and this case is screaming out for certiorari.
I believe the decision has just been entered. My understanding is that it is against the defendants, but I have no details yet.
I doubt it. It makes no sense to conclude: "Golly, ID is great science, but the school board had religious motives ..." and it similarly makes no sense to do the opposite: "ID is horrible science, pure creationism, but the school board's motives were pure ..."
It's not possible to split this one, or so it seems to me. The only question is whether he'll decide on school board motives (the narrowest and weakest way to go) or whether he'll conclude that ID is religion, and therefore ...
But it's silly to make predictions when we're this close to knowing.