Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 24, 2004 Decided June 14, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Michael A. Newdow et al. |
| Docket nos. | 02-1624 |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 1 (more)
124 S. Ct. 2301; 159 L. Ed. 2d 98; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4178; 72 U.S.L.W. 4457; 188 Ed. Law Rep. 17; 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5083; 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7022,17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 359;
|
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), amended on denial of rehearing en banc, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003). |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 542 U.S. 961 (2004). |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| A noncustodial parent did not have standing in federal court to allege that his child's school violated the Establishment Clause by leading students in the recital of the words "under God" added in 1954 to the Pledge of Allegiance. The issue of whether "under God" is constitutional, however, was not ruled on. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist (in judgment), joined by O'Connor; Thomas (Part I only) |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was an important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. This case was about whether the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit began in 2000. It argued that adding "under God" to the Pledge in 1954 was against the First Amendment. This part of the First Amendment is called the Establishment Clause. It means the government cannot create or favor any religion.
Before the Supreme Court heard the case, a lower court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, had ruled that the words "under God" were unconstitutional. This ruling caused a lot of public discussion.
However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, they did not decide if "under God" was constitutional. Instead, the Court ruled that the person who brought the lawsuit, Michael Newdow, did not have the legal right, called "standing", to sue on behalf of his daughter. This was because his daughter's mother had sole legal custody. Because of this, the lower court's decision was overturned.
After this, a new lawsuit was filed in 2005 by other families. A judge ruled in their favor, but this decision was later overturned on appeal.
The First Lawsuit: Michael Newdow's Case
Starting the Case in District Court
Michael Newdow, a lawyer and doctor from Sacramento, California, started this lawsuit in March 2000. He sued the Elk Grove Unified School District. Newdow said that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were against the Constitution. He felt that reciting the Pledge daily with these words interfered with his right to teach his daughter his own beliefs.
A judge first looked at the case and decided that the Pledge was constitutional. So, the case was dismissed. Newdow then decided to appeal this decision.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decisions
The case then went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This court issued three important opinions about the case.
Newdow I: The First Ruling
In June 2002, a panel of three judges at the Ninth Circuit Court made a big decision. They agreed that Michael Newdow had the right to challenge the school's practice. Two of the three judges decided that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. They said it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
One judge disagreed, saying that the religious part of "under God" was so small it shouldn't be a legal issue. This decision caused a lot of public debate. Many members of Congress publicly recited the Pledge, including "under God," to show their disagreement with the court's ruling.
Newdow II: The Custody Issue
After the first ruling, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter, stepped in. Newdow and Banning were not married. Banning told the court that she had sole legal custody of their daughter. This meant she alone could make decisions about her daughter's education and legal matters.
Banning also said that her daughter was Christian and had no problem with the Pledge or its reference to God. She worried that the lawsuit would make people think her daughter shared her father's atheist views, which was not true.
The court looked at this new information. They decided that even though Banning had sole legal custody, Newdow still had the right to object to government actions affecting his child. They said he could still try to protect his own parental interests.
Newdow III: Final Ninth Circuit Opinion
The school district asked for a larger group of judges to review the case, but this was denied. In February 2003, the court issued an updated opinion. This new opinion focused more on the school's practice of leading the Pledge, rather than the original law that added "under God."
Later, in September 2003, Newdow was given joint legal custody of his daughter. This meant he shared the right to make decisions about her.
Why "Under God" Was Questioned
The Ninth Circuit judges noted that the words "under God" were added in 1954 to recognize a "Supreme Being." This happened when the government was speaking out against countries that did not believe in God. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the law, he said that school children would "daily proclaim... the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
One judge, Alfred Goodwin, explained that saying "we are a nation 'under God'" is like saying "under Jesus" or "under no god." He felt that none of these statements could be neutral when it comes to religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Hearing the Case
On March 24, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. They wanted to answer two main questions:
- Did Michael Newdow have the legal right (standing) to challenge the school's Pledge policy?
- If he did, did the policy violate the First Amendment?
Justice Antonin Scalia did not take part in the case. Newdow had asked him to step aside because Scalia had publicly spoken about his disagreement with the Ninth Circuit's decision.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court announced its decision. Five of the eight justices decided that Michael Newdow did not have the legal right to bring the case. This was because his daughter's mother, Sandra Banning, had sole legal custody at the time the lawsuit was filed. This meant she had the only authority over the girl's education.
Because Newdow lacked the legal right to sue, the Supreme Court did not answer the second question about whether "under God" was constitutional. They simply reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision based on this legal procedure.
Different Opinions from the Justices
The other three justices agreed that the Ninth Circuit's decision should be overturned. However, they disagreed about whether Newdow had the right to sue. They believed he did have standing. Because of this, they went on to discuss whether the Pledge was constitutional. They all found that it did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that "under God" does not create or favor a religion. He felt it simply acknowledges the nation's religious history and the role of religion for the Founding Fathers of the United States. So, he believed the Pledge was a non-religious act.
Justice Clarence Thomas argued that saying the Pledge is unconstitutional stretches the idea of "coercion" too far. He felt that the Pledge does not truly force students to be religious. He also believed that the Establishment Clause should only stop the federal government from creating a religion, not states.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the government should not make a person's religious beliefs important to their place in the community. She believed the government should not send a message that one religion is favored over another.
