DOCSLIB.ORG

Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CASE NO. 09-2473 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (District Court #1:07-cv-356) APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF MICHAEL NEWDOW ROSANNA FOX Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Plaintiffs PO BOX 233345 12 ELDORADO CIRCLE SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 NASHUA, NH 03062 (916) 424-2356 (603) 318-8479 [email protected] [email protected] Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3 I. “God” means “God” ...........................................................................4 II. The “Power, Prestige and Financial Support of Government” Has Real Consequences............................................14 III. The Organizations Which Have Involved Themselves in this Case Demonstrate that the Case is About (Christian) Monotheism........................................................................................15 IV. Congress’ 2002 Reaffirmation of the Pledge was a Sham .............17 V. Virtually All of the Verbiage in the Opposing Briefs is Irrelevant............................................................................................19 VI. No One Is Being Prevented From Saying “One Nation under the dominant White race” .....................................................20 VII. Neither Our “History” Nor Our “Heritage” Justifies the Pledge Alteration ...............................................................................22 VIII. A Pledge of Allegiance is Patriotic. Violating the Constitution is the Antithesis of Patriotism. Incorporating a Constitutional Violation Within a Patriotic Exercise Does Not Eliminate the Violation.....................................................25 IX. The Only “Binding Precedent” of the Supreme Court Shows that the Pledge Fails the Coercion Test...............................27 X. Marsh v. Chambers is the Exception that Hardly Proves the Rule...............................................................................................29 XI. The Constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. § 4 Remains at Issue.................30 i Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................32 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................33 ii Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)..............................21, 22 Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ...................28 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) ......................14 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)......................................2, 15, 21 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 516 (1997)................................................31 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)...................................................................28 Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) .............................................................................................................26 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)........................................................9, 13 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ............................................................21 Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) ............................18, 27 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) .......................................................................14 Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992).....................................................31 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)...........................................................31 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ...............................................................21, 30 Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) .................................................................28 McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ................................9 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) ..........................................................23 iii Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) .........................................................22 Newdow v. Rio Linda USD, Nos. 05-17257, 05-17344, 06-15093, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2010).........................................................................................21 Newdow v. United States Cong., 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002)................................18 Newdow v. United States Cong., 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................10 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ..........................................................1, 2, 3 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).......................30 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) .......................................................32 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)..........................................................1 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)....................................................................26 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) .....................26 Westside Community Bd. of Ed. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).........................21 Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 510 (2006).................................................19 Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952).....................................................8, 22 STATUTES 1 U.S.C. § XLIII (1776)...........................................................................................24 4 U.S.C. § 4..............................................................................................................30 8 C.F.R. §337.1 ..........................................................................................................9 Act of Apr. 17, 1952, ch. 216, 66 Stat. 64 .................................................................6 iv Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 Act of July 11, 1955, ch. 303, 69 Stat. 290................................................................6 Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795, 70 Stat. 732................................................................7 H. Con. Res. 60, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess., July 17, 1953................................................6 H.R. 5064, 107th Cong. (2002).................................................................................10 Pub. L. 107-293 (Nov. 13, 2002), 116 Stat. 2060....................................................12 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Constitution, Amendment I..............................................................................22 U.S. Constitution, Article VI ............................................................................ 22, 27 WEBSITES http://ssrn.com/abstract=1594374............................................................................25 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html....................................................12 http://www.aclj.org/Registration/ ............................................................................16 http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/about/Purpose/principles.aspx ......................16 http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/resources/pdf/pledgeAllegiance.pdf........................12 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10205......................................6 http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp ...................................................16 v Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address .................................................................................................................................8 https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/LawReview/NewdowCULRVol38.pdf...................25 OTHER AUTHORITIES 100 Cong. Rec. 7, 8617-8618 (June 22, 1954) ..........................................................5 148 Cong. Rec. 89, S6103 (June 26, 2002) .............................................................10 148 Cong. Rec. 89, S6306 (June 28, 2002) .............................................................10 3 Elliott’s Debates 330.............................................................................................23 84th Cong., 1st Sess., House Doc. 234......................................................................7 Edgell P, Hartmann D, and Gerteis J. Atheists as "other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. American Sociological Review, Vol. 71 (April, 2006) ...........................................................1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Linde, Lawmaking, and Legacies Philip
    HONORING HANS: ON LINDE, LAWMAKING, AND LEGACIES PHILIP P. FRicKEY* It is a great honor to present the keynote address at this symposium, "Unparalleled Justice: The Legacy of Hans Linde." The symposium raises several concerns, however. First, consider the title. In his wonderful book, The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined "legacy" as "a gift from one who is legging it out of this vale of tears."' Yet the work of Hans Linde remains vigorous and ongoing. Indeed, to those of us who know and follow his activities, he remains the Energizer bunny of public law at the age of 82. He just keeps right on going, on the Council of the American Law Institute, on the Oregon Law Commission, and in conversation with students and scholars alike. Second, in honoring Hans, we run the risk of duplication. This is not the first festschrift for him.2 To see if I could find anything new to say, I ran a Google search. I discovered the following: "Hans Linde happens to have a big thing for blondes."3 Alas, it turns out that this particular Hans Linde is a middle-aged fellow who lives in Germany and is involved in some sort of flight simulation club. This Hans Linde likes to simulate flights to Scandinavia. Not our Hans Linde. But for a moment there, I thought I had a new headline for all *Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall). This essay encompasses the keynote address presented at the Willamette University College of Law Symposium, UnparalleledJustice: The Legacy of Hans Linde, held on October 27, 2006, supplemented by light footnoting.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Review Scholarship in the Eyes of the Twenty-First Century Supreme Court Justices: an Empirical Analysis
    2012] APPENDIX TO 4 DREXEL L. REV. 399 A-1 LAW REVIEW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE EYES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS Brent E. Newton APPENDIX: OPINIONS ISSUED DURING 2001-11, IN WHICH ONE OR MORE JUSTICES CITED AT LEAST ONE LAW REVIEW ARTICLE 1. Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng‘rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). Id. at 177 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Sam Kalen, Commerce to Conservation: The Call for a National Water Policy and the Evolution of Federal Jurisdiction Over Wetlands, 69 N.D. L. REV. 873 (1993)). Author: Associate, Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis Law Review Ranking: 454 Id. at 178 n.4 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Garrett Power, The Fox in the Chicken Coop: The Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 63 VA. L. REV. 503 (1977)). Author: Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law Law Review Ranking: 6 Id. at 195–96 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Richard L. Revesz, Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the ―Race-to-the-Bottom‖ Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1210 (1992)). Author: Professor of Law, New York University Law Review Ranking: 5 2. Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001). No citations 3. Gitlitz v. Comm‘r of Internal Revenue, 531 U.S. 206 (2001). Id. at 221 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing James F. Loebl, Does the Excluded COD Income of an Insolvent S Corporation Increase the Basis of the Shareholders‘ Stock?, 52 U.
    [Show full text]
  • In God We Trust
    IN THIS ISSUE • Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional • Court Voids Law on Animal Cruelty • Spousal Support Contract Enforceable Against Husband • Defective Sperm Could Not Be May 2010 Basis for Suit Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional SUMMARY: The statutes requiring that “In God We Trust” be Looking only at the motto Newdow opposes, and printed on U.S. paper money and stamped into U.S. coins do the wording of the Establishment Clause, his argument looks not violate the First Amendment because that motto is strong. Yet in 1970, the Ninth Circuit decided a case called ceremonial or patriotic and not an affirmative effort by the Aronow v. United States making the same essential argument government to advocate religious belief. The United States Newdow made here—that “In God We Trust” violates the First Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Newdow v. Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In that case, the Ninth LeFevre on March 11, 2010. Circuit disagreed. Rather than a sincere statement or command of unified religious belief, the motto, ruled the court, was a BACKGROUND: Michael Newdow is an ordained minister in more generalized and symbolic slogan with a ceremonial or and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science, a patriotic purpose. Its function was rooted in tradition rather religion whose members believe that there is no god. Newdow than religion and the motto’s appearance on money did not has brought various lawsuits intended to end government impede people’s ability to believe or disbelieve according to practices that he and his church argue advance belief in a their own ideas and feelings.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A. Campbell Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Campbell, James A. (2006) "Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation," Akron Law Review: Vol. 39 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Campbell: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow CAMPBELL1.DOC 4/14/2006 1:14:41 PM NEWDOW CALLS FOR A NEW DAY IN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE: JUSTICE THOMAS’S “ACTUAL LEGAL COERCION” STANDARD PROVIDES THE NECESSARY RENOVATION I. INTRODUCTION Most Supreme Court cases fly under the radar of the national media. Occasionally, however, the media finds a case worthy of being thrust into the spotlight.1 In 2004, the Supreme Court faced such a case in Elk Grove Unified School District v.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6
    Michael Newdow Pro hac vice (pending) USDC-SDNY Bar PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 273-3798 [email protected] Edwin M. Reiskind, Jr. Friend & Reiskind PLLC 100 William Street, #1220 New York, NY 10038 (212) 587-1960 (212) 587-1957 (Fax) [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ROSALYN NEWDOW; KENNETH BRONSTEIN; BENJAMIN DREIDEL; NEIL GRAHAM; JULIE WOODWARD; JAN AND PAT DOE; DOE-CHILD1 AND DOE-CHILD2; ALEX AND DREW ROE; ROE-CHILD1, ROE-CHILD2, AND ROE-CHILD3; VAL AND JADE COE; COE-CHILD1 AND COE-CHILD2; NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS; FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; RICHARD A. PETERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MINT; LARRY R. FELIX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Newdow v. The Congress of the United States Original Complaint TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ v JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A. PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Person of the Year" Covers for Time Magazine
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 12-1-2012 Where in the World are the Women of Time? Women and the "Person of the Year" Covers for Time Magazine Krystle Lynne Anttonelli University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Repository Citation Anttonelli, Krystle Lynne, "Where in the World are the Women of Time? Women and the "Person of the Year" Covers for Time Magazine" (2012). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1704. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/4332685 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHERE ARE THE WOMEN OF TIME? WOMEN AND THE “PERSON OF THE YEAR” COVERS FOR TIME MAGAZINE by Krystle Anttonelli Bachelor
    [Show full text]
  • 2002-2003 Year in Review
    Oregon Lawyer 2 0 0 3 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SCHOOL OF LAW Since 1884, Oregon’s Public 2002-2003 Law School YEAR IN REVIEW NEW STUDENTS Academically Impressive, Geographically Diverse— and More Applicants PROFESSORS Federal Prosecutor, Corporate Attorneys Join Faculty PROGRAMS Appropriate Dispute Resolution and Environmental Law Programs Expand, Portland Business Program Grows. Public Interest/Pro Bono Champs Again! PICTURES Four Seasons at the Knight Law Center, 2003 Commencement and Frohnmayer Award Banquet KUDOS Volunteers Transform Law Students into Lawyers WWW.LAW.UOREGON.EDU U O S C H O O L O F L A W MESSAGE FROM THE DEAN NEW FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS, are using our new space in the Portland Center STRENGTHENED PROGRAMS AMONG building owned by the UO for summer school FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS classes, student recruitment, and career services activities. It has been an exciting and eventful first year, and We continue to add energetic new faculty with I am very pleased with the steps forward that the impressive academic and practice credentials to law school has taken. our ranks. Tom Lininger, who previously worked This year we had 1,900 as a federal prosecutor in Oregon and with the applicants for 180 places law firm of Skadden, Arps in San Francisco, will in our entering class, be teaching evidence and legal profession. Judd and the students we Sneirson, who previously worked for Willkie, admitted as the Class of Farr & Gallagher in New York and as a law clerk 2006 are among the best for a federal judge, will be teaching contracts credentialed and most and business associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Lessons in Appellate Advocacy
    Federal Trade Commission Ten Lessons in Appellate Advocacy Remarks of J. Thomas Rosch Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission before the Howrey LLP Antitrust Fundamentals Seminar Washington, DC February 24, 2011 Last Fall at the ABA Antitrust Section’s Masters Course in Williamsburg, I talked about some of the lessons—both good and bad— that I learned during the forty-plus years I was an antitrust trial lawyer.1 There were more lessons I could have shared—like who gets to sit closest to the jury (it’s always plaintiff’s counsel, as Bill Schwarzer and I learned to our dismay one day when, representing Chrysler, we tried to preempt those coveted seats only to have the trial judge The views stated here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or other Commissioners. I am grateful to my attorney advisor, Henry Su, for his invaluable assistance in putting these thoughts to paper. 1 J. Thomas Rosch, Can Antitrust Trial Skills Really Be “Mastered”? Tales Out of School About How to Try (or Not to Try) an Antitrust Case, Remarks Presented at the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Antitrust Masters Course (Sept. 30, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/100930roschmasterscourseremarks.pdf. (old Judge William Sweigert) sternly tell us to take our proper places).2 And whether there’s any point, as a defendant, in contesting the seating of a 6-person instead of a 12-person civil jury (there isn’t, though that would always seem to favor the plaintiff, given the unanimity requirement).3 But today I’d like to talk about something else: appellate advocacy.4 More specifically, I’d like to share with you some of the good and bad things I have learned about that subject over the same forty years and a lot of appellate arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpublished Court of Appeals Decisions: a Hard Look at the Process†
    UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS: A HARD LOOK AT THE PROCESS† STEPHEN L. WASBY‡ I. INTRODUCTION The burgeoning caseload of the U.S. courts of appeals, which has outpaced the increase in district court filings and also has risen more rapidly than has the number of appellate judges, has caused a problem for these courts. As mandatory jurisdiction courts which must rule on all appeals brought to them, even if the issues are elementary and the answers obvious, what should they do? Both formally and informally, they have used a type of triage by sorting out cases for differing types of treatment. To aid in coping, for over thirty years the courts of appeals have issued dispositions which are not published and which are not to be cited as precedent. Whether dispositions become published opinions or unpublished memoranda is a result of the judges, clerks, and parties who prepare them and the process through which dispositions move. A published opinion may have started as such, or it may have been proposed as an unpublished judgment. A disposition that began life as a proposed memorandum disposition may see the light of day as a published opinion, and there may have been debate within the panel of judges as to the type of disposition to be issued. Because it is time for systematic attention to the actuality of practices in the courts of appeals leading to unpublished dispositions,1 this article is offered to provide some empirical groundwork about the process † This article is based on a paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association (Chicago, Ill.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 107 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 148 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 No. 109 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 2 p.m. Senate TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was APPOINTMENT OF ACTING Following that vote, the Senate will called to order by the Honorable JACK PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE recess until 2:15, as we do each Tuesday REED, a Senator from the State of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The for party conferences. Debate on the Rhode Island. clerk will please read a communication motion will resume at 2:15. to the Senate from the President pro All Senators should be alerted that PRAYER in addition to the vote on the judicial tempore (Mr. BYRD). The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John The legislative clerk read the fol- nomination at 12:30 today, the Senate Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: lowing letter: will vote on the motion to proceed to Almighty God, Sovereign of this Na- H.R. 5005 upon the expiration or yield- tion, Lord of this Senate and source of U.S. SENATE, ing back of all time—somewhere strength for leaders, we turn to You for PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, Washington, DC, September 3, 2002. around 6:15 this afternoon. guidance for the intensely busy weeks To the Senate: Today, we have a motion to proceed, ahead in this fall session.
    [Show full text]
  • District Clerk
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,.p.l I r r " 28 2 5 1.0 :: 11111 . _ 11111 . 3 2 I IIIII~~ n~M1. 11111 - . 3 6 Ik\ 11111 . BOO 4 0 Ii'-2. 001,I~. • 0 I• I :ij'",li IIIII~~ 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 150mm ->-----~-..... 6" UNI,TED STATES COURT. DIRECTORY Sf March 1, 1986 U.S. DepFrtment of Justice Natlonallnstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originallng it. Points of view or opinions staled in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~l:lted material has been granted by • • Publlc DOmaln Lnllted States Court Directory to the National Criminal JUstice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ " ) sion of the epp.y.ri:ght owner. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 I 053 03 • UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Washington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division Office of the Chief (633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (763-1865) • • The information in this Directory is current as of March I, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court ...................................................................................................................... • United
    [Show full text]
  • One Nation Under God? a Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District V
    One Nation Under God? A Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (No. 02–1624). The case involves a challenge by Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, to state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public school system that his daughter attends. Mr. Newdow asserts that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge renders it a religious exercise and that government sponsorship of recitals of the Pledge by children in public schools thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled against Mr. Newdow, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that judgment. In its initial opinion, issued on June 26, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held uncon- stitutional the 1954 Act of Congress that added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The court also held unconstitutional the practice of state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Sandra Banning, the mother of Mr. Newdow’s daugh- ter, then challenged his standing to bring the suit. Ms. Banning has no objection to the Pledge or to her daughter’s recitation of it in public school. On December 4, 2002, the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Newdow had standing to sue in his own name but not to sue on his daughter’s behalf. On February 28, 2003, the panel amended its opinion and withdrew its earlier ruling that the 1954 Act of Congress violates the Establishment Clause.
    [Show full text]