DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Jurisprudence Presented in Elk Grove Unified School District V Newdow (2004)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Jurisprudence Presented in Elk Grove Unified School District V Newdow (2004) UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2004 Analysis of jurisprudence presented in Elk Grove Unified School District v Newdow (2004) David Thomas Smith University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Smith, David Thomas, "Analysis of jurisprudence presented in Elk Grove Unified School District v Newdow (2004)" (2004). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 2620. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/37vt-idoc This Dissertation 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 Dissertation 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 Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYSIS OF JURISPRUDENCE PRESENTED IN ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NEWDOW (2004) by David Thomas Smith Bachelor of Arts California State University, Northridge 1975 Master of Arts California State University, Northridge 1979 Master of Education University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1999 A dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree in Educational Leadership Department of Educational Leadership College of Education Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas August 2005 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3194253 Copyright 2005 by Smith, David Thomas All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3194253 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by David Thomas Smith 2005 AU Rights Reserved Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dissertation Approval The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas Augus t 9 -,20_Q5_ The Dissertation prepared by DAVID THOMAS SMITH E ntitled ANALYSIS OF JURISPRUDENCE PRESENTED IN ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V . NEWDOW ( 2 0 0 4 ) is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Examination Committee Chair Dean of the Graduate College Examination Comminee Member Examination Committee Member Graduate College Factrny Representative 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Analysis of Jurisprudence Presented in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) by David Thomas Smith Dr. Gerald C. Kops, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Educational Leadership University of Nevada, Las Vegas The United States Congress adopted the Pledge of Allegiance into the United States Flag Code in 1942. The majority of states had adopted a school wide daily recitation of the Pledge into their education statutes to fulfill the teaching of civics. In 1954, Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge. The insertion of those two words was to distinguish the United States as a religious country as opposed to the atheistic beliefs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The issue becomes whether or not a government lead recitation of the Pledge constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1992, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the Pledge policy in public schools did not violate the Establishment Clause. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Pledge policy was a violation. The conflict between the two appellate court decisions was presented before the United States Supreme Court. The purpose of this study was to examine Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding the Pledge as applied to the educational setting. Arguments on 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. both sides were examined to give administrators insight in the determination of decisions made concerning Establishment Clause issues in their school and district policies. The study also examined the implications of the Court’s decision and the issues left unanswered. The following research questions were addressed to determine an analysis of the issue: 1. How did the Supreme Court resolve the conflict between the lower courts? 2. What were the major arguments that influenced the Court’s decision? 3. What was the jurisprudence of the concurring Justices? 4. Has the Court’s decision left unresolved issues? 5. Have new issues emerged as a result of the Court’s decision? 6. What are the implications of the decision for school leaders and school administration? 7. Does the decision offer guidance for addressing future disputes regarding the interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause? Because the analysis of this study utilized legal research, the writing style contained in this dissertation was a combination of APA and the Harvard Blue Book. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1 History of the Pledge ............................................................................................................ 1 Federal District and Appellate Court Actions Against States Involving the Pledge .. 4 Research Problem ............................................................................................................... 11 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 12 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................12 Methodology ........................................................................................................................16 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 17 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 23 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 24 Summary ..............................................................................................................................24 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................... 26 Wall of Separation..............................................................................................................28 Relevant United States Supreme Court Decisions/Opinions Pertaining to the Arguments Presented in Elk Grove School District v. Newdow ....................................33 Newdow California Eastern District Federal Court ......................................................... 64 Newdow Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ......................................................................... 72 Newdow U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................ 92 Writs o f Certiorari............................... 92 Other Motions Submitted to the Court .......................................................................... 96 Amicus Curiae Briefs for the Petitioners ......................................................................99 Amicus Curiae Briefs for the Respondent ..................................................................109 Briefs for the Petitioners .............................................................................................. 128 Brief for the Respondent...............................................................................................132 Oral Argument .............................................................................................................. 135 Summary ............................................................................................................................149
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Transformative Significance of the School Prayer Decisions
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 38 Issue 4 Article 1 4-20-2011 Constitutional Divide: The Transformative Significance of the School Prayer Decisions Steven D. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Steven D. Smith Constitutional Divide: The Transformative Significance of the School Prayer Decisions, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 4 (2011) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol38/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Constitutional Divide: The Transformative Significance of the School Prayer Decisions Steven D. Smith* I. INTRODUCTION II. CONTINGENCIES AND UNCERTAINTIES A. The Conclusion: Engel B. The Explanation: Schempp C. Unanswered Questions III. A CRAZY-QUILT, QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION A. The PerennialContenders B. Incompatible but (Sometimes) Indistinguishable C. Patterns ofDominance? D. The Conceptions as Quasi-Constitutional E. The Virtues of Quasi-Constitutionalism 1. Quasi-Constitutionalism as the Default Position 2. The Positive Advantages of Quasi-Constitutionalism F. On the Eve of the School PrayerDecisions IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCHOOL PRAYER DECISIONS A. How the Decisions Transformed ConstitutionalDoctrine 1. Secularism as the Doctrinal "Test" 2. The Significance of the Public Schools 3. The Importance of Prayer B. Why the Significance of the School PrayerDecisions Went Largely Unnoticed (by Their Supporters) V. TRANSFORMATIONS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHOOL PRAYER DECISIONS A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Religious Values in Judicial Decision Making
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 68 Issue 2 Article 3 Spring 1993 The Role of Religious Values in Judicial Decision Making Scott C. Idleman Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Idleman, Scott C. (1993) "The Role of Religious Values in Judicial Decision Making," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 68 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol68/iss2/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Role of Religious Values in Judicial Decision Making SCOTT C. IDLEMAN* [U]nless people believe in the law, unless they attach a universal and ultimate meaning to it, unless they see it and judge it in terms of a transcendent truth, nothing will happen. The law will not work-it will be dead.' INTRODUCTION It is virtually axiomatic today that judges should not advert to religious values when deciding cases,2 unless those cases explicitly involve religion.' In part because of historical and constitutional concerns and in * J.DJM.P.A. Candidate, 1993, Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington; B.S., 1989, Cornell University. 1. HAROLD J. BERMAN, THE INTERACTION OF LAW AND RELIGION 74 (1974). 2. See, e.g., KENT GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND POLITICAL CHOICE 239 (1988); Stephen L.
    [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]
  • From John F. Kennedy's 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 53 Issue 4 Faculty Presentation Day Article 1 January 2008 From John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian Supremacy: Religion in Modern Presidential Politics Stephen A. Newman New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal History Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen A. Newman, From John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian Supremacy: Religion in Modern Presidential Politics, 53 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 691 (2008-2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. VOLUME 53 | 2008/09 STEPHEN A. NEWMAN From John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian Supremacy: Religion in Modern Presidential Politics ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stephen A. Newman is a professor of law at New York Law School. The author would like to thank Joseph Molinari of the New York Law School library for his invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article. 691 At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. The well-known statement that “[w]e are a religious people,” has proved true.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonestablishment, Standing, and the Soft Constitution
    St. John's Law Review Volume 85 Number 2 Volume 85, Spring 2011, Number 2 Article 2 April 2014 Nonestablishment, Standing, and the Soft Constitution Steven D. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Smith, Steven D. (2011) "Nonestablishment, Standing, and the Soft Constitution," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 85 : No. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol85/iss2/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NONESTABLISHMENT, STANDING, AND THE SOFT CONSTITUTION STEVEN D. SMITHt It is not usual for legal scholars working in establishment clause jurisprudence-and it is especially not usual for me-to say nice things about what the Supreme Court has done to the subject. But that is what I mean to do today. I don't want to be too agreeable or cheerful, though, so this time, although commending the Court, I am going to take issue with the commentators. More specifically, I want to praise a recent development that most commentators seem to deplore-namely, the Court's recent practice of using the slightly disreputable doctrine of standing as a device to avoid deciding Establishment Clause cases on the merits. Thus, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,' the Court used a dubious "prudential" standing doctrine to avoid deciding whether the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional.
    [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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]