Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 05-17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2005)
A California federal district court has ruled that a school district's policy requiring classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), that Michael Newdow lacked legal standing to bring suit on behalf of his daughter challenging the constitutionality of Elk Grove Unified School District's (EGUSD) policy requiring the daily recitation of the Pledge in school, he refiled his suit, adding custodial parents as plaintiffs to avoid standing problems. The claims in Mr. Newdow's present suit are identical to those raised in his previous one, except that he has added the claim that his rights were violated because the Pledge is recited at school board meetings. In addition to EGUSD, he has named the U.S. Congress and the State of California as defendants. The district court dismissed all of Mr. Newdow's claims, including the one regarding school board meetings, on the basis that he lacks prudential standing to sue as a parent and Article III standing as a taxpayer. However, the court found the remaining plaintiffs do have standing as parents. Addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003), controlled in the present case, the district court concluded that the decision was still good law. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the appeals court decision was rendered null by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. While the Ninth Circuit's decision would have no precedential value if the U.S. Supreme Court had reversed it on the merits or because Mr. Newdow lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the district court concluded that the Supreme Court decided the case on the narrower ground that he lacked prudential standing, which is not a constitutional requirement. Therefore, the district court held that it is still bound by the Ninth Circuit's ruling, that the EGUSD's Pledge policy violates the Establishment Clause, and that, upon a motion by the plaintiffs, the court would issue an order enjoining EGUSD from enforcing the policy. However, the court dismissed as moot the plaintiffs' claim that the 1954 Congressional act that added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause, since "[u]pon the issuance of that injunction, plaintiffs will no longer suffer from an injury-in-fact which would require redress from this court." Lastly, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that recitation of the Pledge at school board meetings violates the Establishment Clause because their refusal to recite the Pledge brands them "political outsiders" and, as a result, they are "coerced" to recite. The coercion test was appropriate "only in the context of children who are more likely to be pressured and negatively impacted," the court determined. In contrast, recitation of the Pledge at board meetings more akin to the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer, a practice held constitutional in
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 05-17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: For background on the case, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Newdow v. U.S. Congress]