Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court . The lawsuit , originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing _en banc _ was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow , as a noncustodial parent , did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole legal custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law, so it did not consider the constitutional question raised by the case.

On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an order enjoining the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in the pledge with "under God." The case was later appealed to the Ninth Circuit under _Newdow v. Carey _ and was reversed.

Contents

• 1 U.S. District Court Case

• 2 U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

  • 2.1 Newdow I – June 26, 2002

  • 2.2 Newdow II – December 4, 2002

  • 2.3 Newdow III – February 28, 2003

  • 2.4 Quotations and legal detail

• 3 U.S. Supreme Court

• 4 See also

• 5 References

• 6 External links

U.S. District Court Case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: U.S. District Court Case")

Michael Newdow , a Sacramento, California attorney and emergency medicine physician , filed suit in March 2000 against the Elk Grove Unified School District . Newdow sued as the _next friend _ on behalf of his daughter, who was enrolled in the Elk Grove public schools. He said the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and that, as such, the daily recitation of the Pledge with the offending words interfered with his right to inculcate his daughter with his religious beliefs.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski found the Pledge was constitutional. The District Court accepted the magistrate's finding and dismissed the case on June 21, 2000. Newdow then appealed.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit")

The Ninth Circuit issued three opinions in the case, as outlined below.

Newdow I – June 26, 2002

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Newdow I – June 26, 2002")

A three-judge panel of the court unanimously found Newdow had standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. On the merits of the case, the court reversed the trial court decision on a 2-to-1 vote, on June 26, 2002. The majority opinion was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin with a partial concurrence and partial dissent written by Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez .

In reviewing the case, the court applied the Lemon Test , the Endorsement Test , and the Coercion Test. In doing so, the Court concluded recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" included violated the Establishment Clause .

Fernandez asserted in his partial dissent that the religious content of the "under God" addition is so small that it is de minimis —so trivial as to be properly beneath judicial notice.

Public and congressional reaction to the Ninth Circuit's decision was decidedly negative. About 150 Members of Congress stood on the front steps of the Capitol and recited the Pledge including the words under God; and the Senate passed a non-binding resolution affirming the presence of under God by a unanimous vote.

Newdow II – December 4, 2002

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Newdow II – December 4, 2002")

After the June opinion was issued, Sandra Banning—the mother of the child in question (Newdow and Banning were not married) filed a motion to intervene or, alternatively, to dismiss Newdow's complaint. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a California court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent her legal interests and make all decisions about her education and welfare. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Banning said she believed her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her father's atheist views. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughter's sole legal custodian, that it was not in the child's interest to be a party to Newdow's lawsuit.

The court's second published opinion noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but the judges unanimously concluded that Banning's sole legal custody of the child did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article Three standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child. The court further held that under California law Newdow retained the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradicted the mother's, and that Banning's objections as sole legal custodian did not defeat Newdow's right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.

Newdow III – February 28, 2003

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Newdow III – February 28, 2003")

Defendants sought en banc review. This was denied and an amended order and opinion was issued in February 2003. The amended opinion omitte

…