First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
Quick look at Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow

First Amendment Center Online

Case name: Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow

Background: Sacramento, Calif., atheist Michael Newdow in 2000 challenged the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, asserting they amount to a religious expression and violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. He claimed standing on behalf of his daughter who is a student at a public school where the pledge is recited daily. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled in his favor and agreed he had standing. The school district challenged the ruling before the Supreme Court, joined by the child’s mother Sandra Banning who claimed that Newdow has only partial custody over the child — Newdow and Banning never married and live separately — adding that both she and the daughter are Christians who do not object to reciting the pledge. Banning asserted that without her permission, Newdow did not have standing to bring the suit.

Ruling: By a 5-3 vote, the Court ruled June 14 — Flag Day — that Newdow does not have standing to challenge the pledge. Because of his limited custody, the Court found that Newdow could not bring the suit as a “next friend” to his daughter, and his other claims of injury from the recitation of the pledge also are not substantial enough to achieve “prudential” standing to sue on his own behalf. The majority opinion does not reach the merits of Newdow’s claim, but describes the Pledge of Allegiance as a “patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity,” rather than as a religious expression.

Lineup: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurrences that state Newdow has standing — but on the merits, his First Amendment claim should fail. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case, having recused himself because of a talk he gave in which he made clear his disapproval of the 9th Circuit opinion.

First Amendment impact: The ruling, though focusing on standing, has the effect of completely reversing the 9th Circuit opinion, bringing an end to Newdow’s quixotic challenge, and freeing public schools in the 9th Circuit from any obligation to reformulate the pledge by eliminating the words “under God.” Anyone else with full custody of a child or otherwise unblemished standing to sue could bring the same challenge as Newdow did, and immediately after the ruling, several commentators predicted that would occur. But the language in Stevens’ majority opinion and the three concurrences would likely give cold comfort to any future challenger, since the justices seem unanimous in viewing the pledge as a non-religious statement of national unity.


High court: Atheist can't challenge 'God' in Pledge

In concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas say oath is constitutional. 06.14.04

Court concludes 2003-04 First Amendment docket
First Amendment Center Web site offers 2003-04 docket sheet, extensive case data, analysis; experts available for interviews. 07.01.04

California atheist fails in quest to topple Pledge
By Tony Mauro High court leaves door open for future challenges, but at least four justices would likely uphold phrase 'under God.' 06.15.04

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Sunday, January 25, 2009 | 06:31:05
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links