See the full decision here: www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.
Personally I think the real reason ID is bunk was stated best by Chaitin in 1975 Sci Am 232(5): 47-52 in his discussion of what a theory is:
"...The scientist seeks to explain these observations through a theory, which can be regarded as an algorithm capable of generating the series and extending it, that is predicting future observations." (emphasis mine)
The full article is here.
Of course Bill Dembski is not above mining information science for tid-bits that support his notions of specified complexity but ignores the forest.
The Big Fact-Check: Thoughts On the Day After Dover
As you might guess the Thomas More Law Center, one of the defenders of ID, is not very happy:
Court Issues Troubling Decision in Dover Intelligent Design Case
Careful here there are still other cases out there like the infamous Georgia sticker case where a federal appeals panel may throw out an earlier ruling that putting stickers questioning evolution on biology text books is unconstitutional.
So we people of the enlightenment have a long legal and political role ahead of us to return our country to rationality.
Oh no! Wonder if that could be construed as a religious statement?