The ELK Grove School District V. Newdow 542 U.S. 1 (2004) was a lawsuit that the Supreme Court of the United States of America made their ruling. Newdow initially filed the case in the year 2000 that led to a ruling in the year 2002 claiming that the terms mentioning God in the Allegiance Pledge endorse religious beliefs. As a result, the terms infringe the Establishment section of the First alteration of the constitution of the United States. However, in the year 2004, the Supreme Court claims that Newdow was not obliged to sue on his daughter's behalf since he was a non-custodian parent since his daughters’ mother had full custody of the child. As a result, this led to the reversal of the case ruling as a procedural law by the Ninth Circuit.
Essential question
1. Does Michael have the right to challenge a policy in public schools that prompts the teachers to lead the students who were willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
2. Does a guiding principle in the school district requiring the teachers to guide the students who were willing to recite the Pledge that mentioned the God’s name in it infringe the Establishment section of the First adjustment?
Facts of the case
Michael Newdow is the plaintiff in this case. His daughter went to a public school located in Elk Grove Unified School District, the defendant in this case. The teachers in the school in which Newdow’s daughter attends led the students to reciting the vow of loyalty. The Pledge of Allegiance mentioned God’s name, which Michael was not comfortable with since he was an atheist. As a result, this led Michael into filing a lawsuit in the federal district court in the states of California. He claimed that the way in which the school made the students listens to the pledge that mentioned God’s name was an infringement of the Establishment section of the First alteration of the Law. The magistrate judge made a verdict because the Pledge does not infringe the Establishment Clause (Scourfield Mclauchlan & Gay, 2015). The court adopted the magistrate’s ruling and dismissed the plaintiff.
Newdow made an appeal to reverse the decision made by the magistrate. As a result, this prompted the student’s mother to file a motion to have her daughter dismissed as a party in the lawsuit. She supported her claims on the following grounds.
• The court of the state had granted her a legal custody of her daughter.
• Her daughter was comfortable with the words in the Pledge of Allegiance since she did not object to saying the phrase in the Pledge.
The Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals considered Michael’s case and claimed that the fact that Newdow had no legal custody of his daughter did not deprive him of teaching his daughter his religious views regardless of the fact that the views may contradict those of his daughter’s mother. In addition to that, the courts of appeals claimed that the congressional act of the year 1954 and the school policy as well, who made contributions to adding God’s name in the Pledge violated the First Amendment (Strauss, 2015). Therefore, the highest Court of the US granted certiorari for reviewing the issues of the standing and the First Amendment.
Successions the case moved through
1. Michael Newdow brought the Elk Grove School District to the federal court district
2. Michael Newdow went to the Ninth Circuit to appeal the case
3. The case moved to the Supreme Court for the final verdict
Findings of each court for the rationale of those decisions
The district magistrate court claimed that the Pledge of Allegiance was by the constitution leading to the dismissal of the case.
The Ninth Circuit offered three opinions regarding the case. The first decision involved the fact that the judge claimed that Michael Newdow had the eminence to oppose and challenge any practices that interfere with his right to educate his daughter on religious matters. The court made a reverse on the trial court decision on a vote of 2-to-1 (Snow, 2011). When reviewing the case, the court applied different tests and concluded that reciting the pledge that metioned the name of God in it was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After the opinion had been issued, the mother of Newdow’s daughter sued his daughter’s father with the intentions of dismissing his complaints. The mother claimed that she had full custody of her daughter and that her daughter believed in God. The court made another verdict that argued that the fact that Newdow had no legal custody of her daughter did not deprive him the right to teach his daughter religious views. Besides that, the court maintained the fact that in the law of California, Newdow was obliged to teach his child to his various religious notions regardless of the fact that they disagree with those of his daughter’s mother.
In the year 2004, the Supreme Court listened to the case and considered two questions that included whether Newdow was supposed to oppose the school district guiding principle on pledge recitation as a non-custodian parent and whether the policy offends the First Amendment. The Supreme Court claimed that Newdow was not obliged to file the lawsuit against the school as a supposed “next friend” to his daughter since his daughter’s mother had full custody of their daughter. However, some justices in the Supreme Court claimed that Michael had the standing to sue the school. After a careful examination of the Constitution, the court found out that Michael’s standing on behalf of his daughter was not against the constitution. Further, the judges claimed that the words “Under God” do not endorse religion but instead, the term acknowledges the religious heritage of the United States and the religion roles among the founding people of the United States.
How does this decision affect education?
The verdict from the court affects learning in different ways. In most cases, the Pledge of Allegiance is recited in school to honor the country in which the school belongs to. In this case, one parent of a student dues a school for reciting the Pledge on a daily basis since he did not believe in God and that those words would influence his child’s religion significantly. The court made various decisions that could be in disagreement with each other since the magistrate court claimed that the Pledge was constitutional while the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the Pledge infringed the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Holzer, 2015). The ruling by the Ninth Circuit would prohibit the recitation of the Pledge in school today. In addition to that, the decision would affect the teaching of the religious education in schools because not all students believe in God. On the contrary, the decision by the Supreme Court, which claims that the words mentioning God’s name in the Pledge fails to violate the First Amendment, would make most people view the pledge in a different perspective especially in a school setting. The case is important since it explains the grounds that lead to the infringement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Besides that, the case gives information to the public on the meaning of the terms "Under God" in the Pledge.
References
Holzer, S. (2015). Religious Reasoning and Due Process of the Law: Why Religious Citizens Have the Burden to Prove the Innocence of Their Reasoning in the Public Square. Journal Of Church & State , 57 (3), 419-449. doi:10.1093/jcs/csu005
Scourfield Mclauchlan, J., & Gay, T. (2015). When Congress Speaks, Does The Supreme Court Listen? Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Congressional Participation As Amicus Curiae Before The U.S. Supreme Court During The Rehnquist Court. Texas Review Of Law & Politics , 20 (1), 79-106.
Snow, D. (2011). Preventing Divisiveness: The Ninth Circuit Upholds the 1954 Pledge Amendment in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District. Brigham Young University Law Review , 2011 (3), 911-942.
Strauss, D. A. (2015). Foreword: Does The Constitution Mean What It Says?. Harvard Law Review , 129 (1), 1-61.
