Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
| 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;
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 328 F. 3d 466 (2002). |
| Subsequent history | U.S. Supreme Court 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 phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The issue of whether "one nation under God" is constitutional, however, was not ruled on. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist (in the judgment of the court only), joined by O'Connor, Thomas (Part I only) |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in the judgment of the court only) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in the judgment of the court only) |
| Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
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. After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "one nation under God" language, [Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), 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. [328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003).
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 pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God." The case was later appealed to the Ninth Circuit under Newdow v. Carey and was reversed.
...
Wikipedia