DOCSLIB.ORG

Boisi Center Interviews No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

the boisi center interviews no. 3: October 18, 2006 michael newdow is a lawyer, physician and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance reached the Supreme Court in 2004. He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before participating in a panel on religious freedom and the pledge of allegiance. owens: What do you think is the owens: Do you think it’s appropriate to say what is a correct religious view. That’s function of a pledge of allegiance—not use the pledge in naturalization cere- my objection to the words “under God” just the American version, but a pledge of monies or VFW meetings or other such appearing in the pledge. allegiance as such? gatherings? owens: Was your legal challenge to the newdow: The function of a pledge, I school policy of the pledge or was it to the think, is to get people to respect their pledge as such? form of government. Now, I’m not a big newdow: The challenge was to the pledger; I’m not into group-speak. But I pledge as such—to the idea that the accept the fact that we have a pledge, and government of the United States essen- I have no objections to it except for the tially says there is a God. If you say we two words “under God.” are “under God,” it implies there’s a God. owens: It seems to me that this pledge Because I’m an atheist, that turns me is a form of civic education to conform into a second-class citizen, and it perpet- people’s ideas of what America ought uates the animus against atheists that I to be or what we are as citizens. Beyond think is pretty pervasive. And it needs to the words that are there, does the pledge change. I’m a citizen of this state and of point to a certain mode of citizenship in this country, and I go to civic gatherings your mind—a particular vision of Amer- where they say the pledge—for instance, ica— or is this nation so diverse that you school board meetings. If I want to run can’t say that? for public office, I can’t win, because the government is essentially telling people newdow: I think the words stand newdow: In any private meeting, not to vote for me. And I have a daughter for noble ideas that few people would there’s no problem whatsoever, because in school, and I want to know she’s not be against. The pledge’s purpose was individuals can do whatever they want. being indoctrinated with religion there. to unify us, to make us think that this There are two questions here. One is my nation has some especially noble and personal view on pledging, and the other owens: So your arguments against the good qualities that we defend. What I is the constitutional issue. The latter is words “under God” don’t only rest on the don’t like about this is that it implies that all I’m trying to argue. Constitutionally, I coercion test? other countries aren’t as good as ours. I think the government can ask its citizens newdow: There are several establish- think our form of government may well to affirm any values that the majority ment clause tests, and as far as I’m con- be the best, but it doesn’t follow that we chooses, except those that are prohibited cerned, no matter which one you apply, as Americans are superior to citizens of by the Constitution. There’s really one the words would have to be removed other nations. that matters more than any and that’s re- from the pledge. The argument that is ligion. The government is not allowed to used regarding public schools is usually 1 the boisi center interview: michael newdow the coercion test, which is actually an are either the people who want it there cases are clear violations of the principles extreme test. Coercion is about the free because it’s religious or the people who I’m emphasizing. exercise realm of the religion clauses, and don’t want it there because it’s religious. owens: In your opinion, are there any the Supreme Court has stated clearly that Either way, it sounds religious to me. So tolerable examples of government speech this is an establishment clause violation. get it out of there. or action that mention God—for exam- I think it is coercive, especially with little owens: You’ve filed a lawsuit trying to ple, military chaplains, prison chaplains, kids. There’s no question; by that test, it strike the national motto—In God We holiday displays on public properties? fails. But it also fails by any other test. Trust—from our currency for the same newdow: I don’t want the govern- owens: There is no question that the reason, that it violates the establishment ment to be forbidden from talking about phrase “under God” is religious. But a lot clause. Can you differentiate that case religion, or anything like that. But I’m of people have argued that this is cere- from the pledge case? against religious holiday displays on monial deism and therefore, because it’s public properties, because when this ceremonial, it’s not religious beliefs, let happens, the government is taking a side alone a requirement to affirm religious in the biggest controversy of religious beliefs. Can you comment on this idea dogma: whether or not God exists. It’s and on the argumentative posture reli- “It’s an issue of saying, yes, God does exist. gious people assume when they say this? equality. No one I have no problem with supplying chap- newdow: Why do religious people lains in the military, because I don’t have make this argument? It’s an issue of is asking for a problem with giving military members equality. No one is asking for special the option to have spiritual assistance. favors for atheists; we’re simply asking special favors for However, the fact that Congress has to be treated equally. That’s why we have atheists; we’re official chaplains seems a little bizarre to an establishment clause, and this claim me. about ceremonial deism shows that we simply asking need it. If you look at what Congress said owens: Would teaching about religion in 1954, there was nothing about it being to be treated in schools be acceptable to you? ceremonial. They were talking about newdow: Absolutely. But only if it’s believing in the Christian God. Maybe equally. That’s from a neutral standpoint, to explain you could stretch it to the Judeo-Chris- why we have an what the different religions are. Teachers tian God, but it certainly was a particular shouldn’t be claiming that Jesus is good view of God. The appeal to the founding establishment or Buddhism is wonderful. fathers and their dedication to the Al- mighty is not historically accurate. This clause.” owens: Do you think we have the tools isn’t ceremonial; it is religious belief in a we need to deal with church-state rela- supreme being, and that’s what every- tions in the United States today? body had in mind until it got challenged. newdow: I think we need to read the Then all of sudden, they come up with newdow: One difference is that reli- Constitution. The public can talk about these bogus excuses. gious people ought to be against having anything it chooses in terms of religion. the motto on currency. A minister of a owens: One of the other arguments is That’s a free exercise question. But the church might say, “I can’t collect money that perhaps “under God” was religious government is not the public square; gov- in my church because we refuse to take in that context, but no one believes it ernment is forbidden to take a position. money that says In God we Trust. It’s anymore. So it doesn’t really matter; That needs to be crystal-clear. sacrilege.” But the biggest difference is there’s no harm given by this “religious” that there is no context in which you are owens: A common reaction to your expression. How do you respond to that? required to read money out loud, whereas pledge lawsuit is that you are trying to newdow: I think Justice Souter made you actually stand up and affirmatively take away the right of a majority of Amer- that argument, and I’m not sure even he voice the pledge, which includes the icans to express their religious beliefs. believed it. He may have just been posing statement that we are a nation under newdow: If you can find a single the question. The fact is, the phrase God. You can opt out of doing this, but sentence where I’ve suggested that any “under God” bothers some people. The that’s not the issue. In the end, both individual or group is forbidden from ex- people for whom it is not meaningless 2 the boisi center interview: michael newdow ercising its religious beliefs, I hope you’ll point it out. And I don’t want the pledge to deny that God exists. That would be just as wrong as saying “one nation, under God.” I’m asking for “one nation, indivisible,” which is what we had before. owens: This issue exemplifies the challenge of protecting minority rights against the wishes of a majority. This has been a constant challenge in American history.
Recommended publications
  • In God We Trust

    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.
  • Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A

    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.
  • GOODSPEED MUSICALS TEACHER's INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE MICHAEL GENNARO Executive Director

    GOODSPEED MUSICALS TEACHER's INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE MICHAEL GENNARO Executive Director

    GOODSPEED MUSICALS TEACHER'S INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE MICHAEL GENNARO Executive Director MICHAEL P. PRICE Founding Director presents Book by MARC ACITO Conceived by TINA MARIE CASAMENTO LIBBY Musical Adaptation by DAVID LIBBY Scenic Design by Costume Design by Lighting Design by Wig & Hair Design by KRISTEN ROBINSON ELIZABETH CAITLIN WARD KEN BILLINGTON MARK ADAM RAMPMEYER Creative Consultiant/Historian Assistant Music Director Arrangements and Original JOHN FRICKE WILLIAM J. THOMAS Orchestrations by DAVID LIBBY Orchestrations by Sound Design by DAN DeLANGE JAY HILTON Production Manager Production Stage Manager Casting by R. GLEN GRUSMARK BRADLEY G. SPACHMAN STUART HOWARD & PAUL HARDT Associate Producer Line Producer General Manager BOB ALWINE DONNA LYNN COOPER HILTON RACHEL J. TISCHLER Music Direction by MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY Choreographed by CHRIS BAILEY Directed by TYNE RAFAELI SEPT 16 - NOV 27, 2016 THE GOODSPEED TABLE OF CONTENTS How To Use the Guides........................................................................................................................................................................4 ABOUT THE SHOW: Show Synopsis..........................................................................................................................................................................5 The Characters..........................................................................................................................................................................7 Meet the Writers......................................................................................................................................................................8
  • Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6

    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 ........................................................................................................................
  • “Clean Hands” Doctrine

    “Clean Hands” Doctrine

    Announcing the “Clean Hands” Doctrine T. Leigh Anenson, J.D., LL.M, Ph.D.* This Article offers an analysis of the “clean hands” doctrine (unclean hands), a defense that traditionally bars the equitable relief otherwise available in litigation. The doctrine spans every conceivable controversy and effectively eliminates rights. A number of state and federal courts no longer restrict unclean hands to equitable remedies or preserve the substantive version of the defense. It has also been assimilated into statutory law. The defense is additionally reproducing and multiplying into more distinctive doctrines, thus magnifying its impact. Despite its approval in the courts, the equitable defense of unclean hands has been largely disregarded or simply disparaged since the last century. Prior research on unclean hands divided the defense into topical areas of the law. Consistent with this approach, the conclusion reached was that it lacked cohesion and shared properties. This study sees things differently. It offers a common language to help avoid compartmentalization along with a unified framework to provide a more precise way of understanding the defense. Advancing an overarching theory and structure of the defense should better clarify not only when the doctrine should be allowed, but also why it may be applied differently in different circumstances. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1829 I. PHILOSOPHY OF EQUITY AND UNCLEAN HANDS ...................... 1837 * Copyright © 2018 T. Leigh Anenson. Professor of Business Law, University of Maryland; Associate Director, Center for the Study of Business Ethics, Regulation, and Crime; Of Counsel, Reminger Co., L.P.A; [email protected]. Thanks to the participants in the Discussion Group on the Law of Equity at the 2017 Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Conference, the 2017 International Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference, and the 2018 Pacific Southwest Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference.
  • 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

    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.
  • Ethical Bedrock Under a Changing Negotiation Landscape Kevin Gibson Marquette University, Kevin.Gibson@Marquette.Edu

    Ethical Bedrock Under a Changing Negotiation Landscape Kevin Gibson Marquette University, [email protected]

    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications Philosophy, Department of 1-1-2017 Ethical Bedrock Under a Changing Negotiation Landscape Kevin Gibson Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. "Ethical Bedrock Under a Changing Negotiation Landscape," in The Negotiator's Desk Reference / Christopher Honeyman, Andrea Kupfer Schneider, editors Saint Paul, Minn. : DRI Press, [2017]: 493-502. Publisher link. © 2017 DRI Press. Used with permission. -----~------------- ------------------~----.--~~--~~~-~ 03 36 ro The Ethical Bedrock under the Negotiation Landscape Kevin Gibson Editors')\~ " ~vote· }'j d' what's Pas 'bl o~r zlemmas as a negotiator fall into two basic sets, ch~Pters in~. e? and "what's right?" The first is treated by many UJ~ztes about t~ b?ok. Here,from his philosopher's background, Gibson thznk more e zrif[uence ofmorality on negotiations, and how we can should bere cJe?rly ~bout what's the right thing to do. This chapter The .Moralitya .~n coTl)unction with Carrie M enkel-Meadow's chapter on 0 J Compromise. Ethics in N Negot· . egotiation b Iabona ~ckdrop th PProaches and personal attitudes vary widely and against a tnight think ~ promo~es bargaining as optimizing personal gains some 0nlybYth t~ at anythmg goes. However, individuals are constrained not shape oure reshold requirements oflaw but also by personal values that . l'he d. co.nd.uct at the negotiating table. It ProVid Isciphne of philosophy can help negotiators in two ways. First, frarnewo e~ a set of time-tested principles that give us the conceptual benchrna \ and language to assess our actions. Secondly, it gives us or difficu~ s of acceptable behavior, which are particularly useful in novel are a numbcases when the law may give little or no guidance.
  • 11-21578 OTI Blum.Qxd

    11-21578 OTI Blum.Qxd

    April 2007 Se Habla Lawsuit? By Edward Blum Though an understanding of English is a requirement for U.S. citizenship, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act mandates that “language assistance” be available to voters in districts with non-native speaker popula- tions that meet certain criteria. The enforcement of Section 203, however, costs taxpayers tens of thou- sands of dollars, and there is no evidence it helps non-native speakers vote. The experiences of Springfield, Massachusetts, illustrate these problems. “A City of Homes . A City for Business . Springfield, like hundreds of other towns and On the Issues A City Rich with History and Multi-cultural counties around the country, is subject to Section Diversity”—so reads the motto of Springfield, 203 of the Voting Rights Act because, among Massachusetts (pop. 150,000), halfway between many other complex criteria, more than 5 percent New York and Boston. With an ethnic mix of of the city’s population speaks a particular foreign blacks, whites, Hispanics, and others reflected in language. The law requires covered jurisdictions its local government, Springfield, like most of to translate all printed election materials into that New England today, supports liberal Democrats language and provide foreign-language assistance at the polls. In the 2006 election, for instance, at the polls. In its six years in office, the George nearly 70 percent of Springfield voters backed W. Bush administration has filed nineteen law- Deval Patrick, the African-American Demo- suits charging noncompliance with Section 203, cratic nominee for governor. more than were filed in all the years from 1978 to So it must have come as a shock to city 2000 combined.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinion of the Seventh Circuit (May 31, 2018) ....................................................la Order of the District Court Illinois (September 29, 2017) ........................................ l0a Order of the Seventh Circuit Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc (August 6, 2018) ..............18a App.la OPINION OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT (MAY 31, 2018) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT KENNETH MAYLE, Plain tiff-Appellant, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-3221 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 17 C 3417—Amy J. St. Eve, Judge. Before: WOOD, Chief Judge, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges. WOOD, Chief Judge. Kenneth Mayle, an adherent of what he calls non- theistic Satanism, sued the United States and officials from the United States Mint, Department of the Treasury, and Bureau of Engraving and Printing, to enjoin the printing of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on United States currency. The district court dismissed his complaint, and we affirm. App. 2a Mayle asserts that the motto amounts to a gov- ernment endorsement of a "monotheistic concept of God." Because Satanists practice a religion that rejects monotheism, they regard the motto as "an attack on their very right to exist." Possessing and using currency, Mayle complains, forces him (and his fellow Satanists) to affirm and spread a religious message "committed to the very opposite ideals that he es- pouses." In addition, Mayle characterizes the printing of the motto as a form of discrimination against adher- ents to minority religions because it favors practition- ers of monotheistic religions.
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

    In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

    Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel CA SBN: 220444 PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 916-427-6669 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-00017-LKK-DAD THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER; JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD; JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PETER LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA; RICHARD J. RIORDAN, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION, THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EGUSD”); DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD; THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCUSD”); DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD; THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EJESD”); DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD; THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (“RLUSD”); FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD; Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs allege as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES...............................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................iv JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................1 PARTIES........................................................................................................................................2
  • Case 1:04-Cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50

    Case 1:04-Cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50

    Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL NEWDOW, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 04-2208 (JDB) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case draws this Court into the murky waters of the law relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist litigant, challenges the inclusion of prayers by invited clergy -- in the form of an invocation and benediction -- at the upcoming Presidential Inauguration scheduled to occur on January 20, 2005. He seeks a declaratory judgment and preliminary injunction to prohibit a practice that has existed for almost seventy years through invited clergy, and that arguably can be traced back to the Inauguration of President George Washington in 1789.1 Newdow's present challenge poses complex First Amendment questions relating to one of this nation's most significant public events. But in addition to such weighty Establishment Clause questions, the case raises substantial issue preclusion and standing questions that require this 1 This Memorandum Opinion will address only Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court has considered, but will not rule on at this time, defendants' motions to dismiss. -1- Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 2 of 50 Court to proceed cautiously, particularly given Newdow's prior litigation involving the very same subject matter and the present context of a request for expedited consideration of a motion seeking the extraordinary relief of enjoining the President.2 The Court is therefore mindful of the guidance expressed by the Supreme Court just last year in another case brought by Newdow challenging the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake.
  • Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow, No. 02-1624

    Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow, No. 02-1624

    Nos. 02-1574 and 02-1624 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, et al., _______________________________ Respondents. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and DAVID W. GORDON, Superintendent, EGUSD, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, Respondent. _______________________________ ON PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT MICHAEL A. NEWDOW MICHAEL NEWDOW, Pro Se Post Office Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 392-7382 181538 A ((800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (2) Whether a parent who shares the joint physical custody, but has been deprived of the legal custody, of his child has Article III standing to challenge the daily inculcation of disputed religious dogma when that inculcation is perpetrated by his child’s public school teachers. ii TABLECited OF Authorities CONTENTS Page Questions Presented . i Table of Contents . ii Table of Cited Authorities . iii I. Is The Establishment Clause Violated? . 1 II. Standing For Non-custodial Parents . 8 Conclusion . 11 iii TABLE OFCited CITED Authorities AUTHORITIES Page Cases Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) . 2, 3 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren, 16 Cal. 4th 307, 940 P.2d 797, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 210 (1997) . 9 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) . 7 Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd.