| 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 no. | 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; |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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 | Rehearing denied, 542 U.S. 961 (2004). |
| 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, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[1] 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".[2] After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God",[2] 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.[3]
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."[4] The case was later appealed to the Ninth Circuit under Newdow v. Carey and was reversed.
- ^ Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
- ^ a b Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002).
- ^ Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003).
- ^ David Kravets (September 16, 2005). "Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional". Archived from the original on January 11, 2006. Retrieved March 31, 2008.