He's right. It's not the IDiots who bring these things into court, but concerned parents who are trying to kick ID back out again.
A more interesting question is, if ID can be successfully challenged in court for breaking the First Ammendment, why don't the ID brigade go after Evolution the same way? Is there some fundemental difference between ID and Evo that makes only the former unconstitutional? In fact, it is obvious that they avoid the courts for precisely the same reasons they don't try to demonstrate their 'science' in peer-reviewed journals. Because they would need to present evidence. The one thing they are unwilling or unable to find.
ID is all about preaching to the choir and nothing to do with the cycles of observation and confirmation conducted by science.
Why try to convince scientists when you can instead reach members of the public?
Why publish papers when you can publish books?
Why bother with courts when you can cronyize school boards?
Why look for proof when you have politics?
ID proponents don't want to do the work that all other science has had to do to become accepted. They want a 'by' directly into the final round. "Screw running the race!" they cry, "Just give me the goddamn medal!"
Basically, either they are as lazy or they are dishonest. Either they know they can't prove their crap or they they can't be bothered to try.
When you look at the effort they put into promoting their 'grand idea', I think you'll soon realise which it is.