DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioners, V. the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ET

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petitioners, V. the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ET No. 19- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NEW DOE CHILD #1, ET AL.; Petitioners, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.; Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Michael Newdow Counsel of Record for Petitioners Post Office Box 248 Nice, CA 95464 (916) 273-3798 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (1) Whether Congress violates the Establishment Clause when it makes laws respecting an establishment of Monotheism, thus perpetuating and exacerbating the political disenfranchisement of Atheists (i.e., the nation’s most politically disenfranchised “protected class”). Specifically, in this case, whether Congress may mandate the inscription of “In God We Trust” on every coin and currency bill manufactured by the Department of the Treasury. (2) Whether Congress violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when it mandates the inscription of “In God We Trust” on every coin and currency bill manufactured by the Department of the Treasury. (3) Whether Petitioners’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) are violated when the only coins and currency bills that are legal tender are required by Congress to be inscribed with “In God We Trust,” thus forcing Petitioners (who are Atheists) to bear and proselytize that Monotheistic message. ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES (1) Plaintiffs a. Individuals (1) NEW DOE CHILD #1 (2) NEW DOE CHILD #2 (3) NEW DOE CHILD #3 (4) NEW DOE PARENT (5) NEW ROE CHILD (6) NEW ROE PARENT (7) NEW BOE CHILD (8) NEW BOE PARENT (9) NEW POE CHILD (10) NEW POE PARENT (11) NEW COE CHILD #1 (12) NEW COE CHILD #2 (13) NEW COE CHILD #3 (14) NEW COE PARENT (15) GARY LEE BERGER (16) MARIE ALENA CASTLE (17) CHARLES DANIEL CHRISTOPHER (18) PATRICK ETHEN (19) BETTY GOGAN (20) THOMAS GOGAN (21) ROGER W. KAYE (22) CHARLOTTE LEVERETTE (23) DR. JAMES B. LYTTLE (24) KYLE PETTERSEN-SCOTT (25) ODIN SMITH (26) ANDREA DAWN SAMPSON (27) ERIC WELLS iii b. Organizations (1) ATHEISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (AFHR) (2) SALINE ATHEIST & SKEPTIC SOCIETY (2) Defendants (1) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2) STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY1 (3) DAVID J. RYDER, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MINT2 (4) LEONARD R. OLIJAR, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT For none of the Organizational Plaintiffs is there a parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock. No member of any Organizational Plaintiff has issued shares or debt securities to the public. 1 Defendant Mnuchin has been substituted for his predecessor pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 2 Defendant Ryder has been substituted for his predecessor pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......................................... i LIST OF ALL PARTIES .............................................................................. ii (1) Plaintiffs ............................................................................................ ii a. Individuals ................................................................................. ii b. Organizations .......................................................................... iii (2) Defendants ....................................................................................... iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...................................... iii APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................... v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... vi OPINION BELOW ......................................................................................... x BASIS FOR JURISDICTION .................................................................... x STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ............................................ xi STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................... 1 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ................................... 4 I. THIS CASE IS THE PERFECT VEHICLE TO BRING CLARITY TO THE SUPREME COURT’S ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE ................... 4 II. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW THAT HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED BY THIS COURT: DOES THE CONSTITUTION PERMIT THE DISREGARD OF DEVOUT ATHEISTS? .......................... 5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 36 v APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Item A Court of Appeals’ Opinion (filed Aug. 28, 2018) ................................... App. 1 Item B Court of Appeals’ Judgment (filed Aug. 28, 2018) .................................. App. 32 Item C Court of Appeals’ Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Petition(s) for Rehearing (filed Nov. 26, 2018) ................................. App. 35 Item D Court of Appeals’ Mandate (filed Dec. 4, 2018) ................................... App. 37 Item E District Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (filed Dec. 5, 2016) ................................... App. 39 Item F District Court’s Judgment (filed Dec. 6, 2016) ................................... App. 57 Item G Statutory Provision (Pursuant to Rule 14(1)(i)(v)): Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) ........... App. 59 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ................................................................29 Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) .........................................6, 29 Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) .......................... 7 Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873) ............................. 7 Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) .........................................................................19, 20 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ...............................................................................31 District of Columbia v. Robinson, 30 App. D.C. 283 (1908) ................................................................. 9 Doe v. United States, 901 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... x, 28 Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) .............................................................30 Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 27 (2004) .......................................................30 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ............................ 10, 31 Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) ......................................................................... 7 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) ................................................................................ 7 Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) .......................................31 Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) .............................29 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) .................................30 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .................... 14, 15, 23 Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) .................. 8, 16, 30 McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ............................................................. 16, 30, 31, 34 vii Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) ................................................................. 8 Mount Soledad Mem’l Ass’n v. Trunk, 567 U.S. 944 (2012) ................................................................. 4 New Doe Child #1 v. United States, 901 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2018) ................................................25 Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883) ........................... 7, 24 Petition of Plywacki, 115 F. Supp. 613 (D. Haw. 1953).......................................................................13 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ................................................................................ 7 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) .................. 7, 20, 25 Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 862 (1995) ...........................31 Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) ...........................14 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) .......................... 7 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ................................................................................ 5 Utah Highway Patrol Ass’n v. Am. Atheists, Inc., 565 U.S. 994 (2011) ................................... 4 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ..........................30 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) ................... 30, 31, 34 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (2006) ........................................................ x 31 U.S.C. §5112 .................................................................. xi 31 U.S.C. §5114 .................................................................. xi Act of April 17, 1952, Pub. L. 82-324, ch. 216, 66 Stat. 64 (now codified at 36 U.S.C. § 119) ....................................................................10 Act of July 11, 1955, ch. 303, Pub. L. 84- 140, 69 Stat. 290 (now codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 5112(d)(1) and 5114(b)). ................................... 2 Act of July 30, 1956 (36 U.S.C. § 302) ...............................11 viii Act of June 14, 1954, (4 U.S.C. § 4) ...................................11 An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering
Load more

Recommended publications
  • More Visible but Limited in Its Popularity Atheism (And Atheists) in Finland
    TEEMU TAIRA More visible but limited in its popularity Atheism (and atheists) in Finland his paper argues that atheism has become more atheism has become more visible in the public sphere, visible in Finland, but it is a relatively unpopular especi ally in the media. Some suggestions will be of­ Tidentity position. The relatively low popularity of fered as to why this is the case. This will be done by atheism is partly explained by the connection between using different kinds of data, both quantitative (sur­ Lutheranism and Finnishness. In public discourse athe- veys) and qualitative (mainly media outputs). ism has been historically connected to communism This paper proceeds as follows. First, surveys and the Soviet Union (and, therefore, anti-Finnishness). about Finnish religiosity and atheism will be exam­ However, atheism has slowly changed from being the ined in order to chart the modes and locations of other of Finnishness to one alternative identity among Finnish non­religiosity. This section is based on a many, although it has not become extremely popular. fairly detailed exploration of surveys, including an Recently, with the rise of the so-called ‘New Atheism’, examination of the popularity of religious beliefs, re­ atheism has become more visible in Finnish society and ligious behaviour, membership and identification in this development has led to a polarised debate between Finland. It demonstrates that atheism is relatively un­ defenders and critics of religion. Despite being a study popular in Finland, despite the low level of religious on locality, the aim is to develop a methodological ap- activity. In order to examine why this is the case, pub­ proach that can be applied to other contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Specialty License Plate Rankings
    2020 Specialty License Plate Rankings 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Rank Plate Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total 1 ENDLESS SUMMER 93,986 3 84,009 3 73,289 4 62,577 4 49,806 8 42,463 2 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 93,716 1 92,868 1 93,051 1 94,685 1 88,906 1 96,643 3 HELPING SEA TURTLES SURVIVE 91,423 2 87,102 2 82,001 2 77,861 3 66,242 3 69,148 4 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 70,909 4 70,953 4 71,485 3 71,549 2 66,335 2 69,995 5 PROTECT WILD DOLPHINS 52,247 5 52,073 5 52,459 5 53,166 5 48,406 4 53,409 6 MIAMI HEAT 51,572 8 42,877 10 36,728 10 36,529 9 39,055 9 40,971 7 MARINE CORPS 48,036 7 46,806 7 45,966 8 45,040 8 40,778 7 42,480 8 SAVE THE MANATEE 47,673 6 47,183 6 47,024 6 47,117 7 41,225 6 45,967 9 PROTECT THE PANTHER 41,080 9 42,137 8 43,617 7 45,432 6 42,276 5 47,746 10 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 41,004 13 36,030 13 33,772 13 30,926 13 26,572 16 24,178 11 SAVE OUR SEAS 39,706 11 37,455 11 35,058 11 33,421 11 30,321 11 31,820 12 PROTECT OUR REEFS 38,276 10 38,204 9 37,982 9 37,601 10 33,093 10 36,116 13 ARMY 37,563 12 36,122 12 34,775 12 33,229 12 29,219 12 29,884 14 PROTECT OUR OCEANS 30,473 16 26,783 22 22,654 25 18,540 28 14,669 49 10,350 15 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA 30,017 17 26,715 21 22,734 26 18,445 30 14,430 36 14,352 16 ANIMAL FRIEND 28,500 15 26,965 18 24,802 20 22,465 23 18,009 25 18,662 17 GOLF CAPITAL OF THE WORLD 27,698 14 27,500 14 27,400 14 27,343 15 23,719 13 25,852 18 AIR FORCE 27,092 19 26,420 16 25,563 16 24,693 20 20,763 18 22,075 19 NAVY 26,830 20 26,169 17 25,329 17 24,219 18 20,794 20 21,854
    [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]
  • The "Public Trust" As It Is Used in Article VI
    THE "PUBIC TRUST" JenniferAnglim Kreder ABSTRACT It seems as if no one really knows the meaning of the term "public Trust" used in the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. 7iis Article is the first scholarly attempt to define the term by exploring historical evidence pre-dating the nation's jounding through the Constitution's adoption, including British and colonial trust law that influenced the Founders' conception of the term. Today, one can find the term used only in the cases and scholarship concerning environmental law, tax law and museum law. After a thorough analysis of the old and new sources, this Article proposes the following original definition of term "public Trust": "Any entity given special privilege by the government, beyond the simple grant of a state corporate charteroften coupled with state or federal tax waivers, so long as that entity is legally obligated to engage in conduct that could traditionally have been performed by the government itself for the public's benefit." TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... ..... 1426 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ARTICLE VI............ .... 1428 A. The Stuart Period & Colonial Era......... ............... 1429 B. The Foundingand Early Republic ................... 1430 C. InterpretationalFoundations .................. ..... 1434 D. Fiduciary Underpinnings .......................... 1438 II. MODERN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST....... ..... 1440 A. Judicially Recognized Trusts and Non-Profit Corporations.. 1441 B. EnvironmentalRegulation ......................... 1443 1. Historical Origins of the Environmental "PublicTrust * Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law. The author wishes to disclose that she has done a limited amount of legal work for American Atheists, Inc., including in Ameri- can Atheists, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • In God We Trust” Originated from a Columbia County President Judge
    “IN GOD WE TRUST” ORIGINATED FROM A COLUMBIA COUNTY PRESIDENT JUDGE By André Dominguez The following excerpt from a 1937 WPA booklet in the Society’s Depression-era Works Progress Administration collection makes some interesting claims: Fifteen judges have filled the office of President Judge in Columbia County since the formation of the county from a part of Northumberland, by Act of Assembly of March 22, 1813. Two of the judges later became state Supreme Court Justices and one became governor of Pennsylvania. One of the judges of the county courts, Judge Ellis Lewis, appointed in 1833, later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judge Warren J. Woodward, who served as judge from 1856 to 1861 became a Justice of the Supreme Court and Judge James Pollock, who was appointed in 1851 later became Governor of Pennsylvania. Judge Pollock served in many public offices and was director of the mint at Philadelphia. He was the originator of the motto ‘In God We Trust’ that continues to appear on United States coins. At first glance it would appear that a local Columbia Countian, James Pollock, had become very well accomplished, but I could not recall that the county had produced a governor or that the famous motto had its origins in Columbia County. WPA booklets have a wealth of information, but although usually correct, they rarely include any citations to indicate their sources. The claim that someone associated with Columbia County originated a motto that appears on U.S. currency used by millions of people around the world seemed pretty bold.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Regular Public Meeting Monday, January 5, 2015 @ 5:00 P.M
    REVISED 12/29/14 Board of County Commissioners Wakulla County, Florida Agenda Regular Public Meeting Monday, January 5, 2015 @ 5:00 P.M. _____ Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda: (The Chairman and members of the Board will approve and/or modify the official agenda at this time). Citizens to be Heard (There is a Three (3) minute time limit; non-discussion by Commission; there shall be no debate and no action by the Commission. Citizens will have the opportunity to speak once under the Citizens to be Heard portion of the agenda which will be at the start or end of each meeting). (To ensure fairness and encourage participation, citizens who would like to speak on any item will need to fill out a speaker’s card and turn in to Ms. Osborne prior to the beginning of discussion on that particular item. Citizens are allowed a maximum of 3 minutes to speak.) Awards and Presentations (Members of the Board will have the opportunity to acknowledge members of the community or commendable efforts at this time. Presentations will be made from individuals concerning issue of importance). Announcement Honoring Mrs. Evelyn Evans – Brent Thurmond, Clerk of Court Consent (All items contained herein may be voted on with one motion. Consent items are considered to be routine in nature, are typically non-controversial and do not deviate from past Board direction or policy. However, any Commissioner, the County Administrator, or the County Attorney may withdraw an item from the consent agenda, either in writing prior to the meeting, or at the beginning of the meeting and it shall then be voted on individually.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Review Articles
    Law Review Articles 1. Church and State in the United States: Competing Conceptions and Historic Changes Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 13 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 503 This article explains the separation of church and state in the United States. 2. Crowns and Crosses: The problems of Politico-Religious Visits as they Relate to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 3 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 227 This article examines whether the Pope or any similar leader should be treated as a head of state or as the representative of a religious group. 3. Damages and Damocles: The Propriety of Recoupment Orders as Remedies for Violations of the Establishment Clause Notre Dame Law Review 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1385 In Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, the court required “a private party, at the behest of another private party, to reimburse the public treasury when the government itself ha[d] not sought reimbursement” for a violation of the Establishment Clause. This Note offers background about taxpayer standing, restitution lawsuits, and background on the Establishment Clause. 4. Accommodation of Religion in Public Institutions Harvard Law Review 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1639 This artcile examines establishment clause problems attaching to government efforts to recognize religion in public institutions under an ‘accommodation’ rationale. Section A introduces the justification for allowing government recognition of religion in public institutions and discusses the difficulty of applying traditional establishment clause analysis to actions taken under this justification. It then proposes that the ambiguities in establishment clause analysis should be explicitly resolved so as to prevent majoritarian infringements of the religious autonomy of minorities.
    [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]
  • Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance Offends the Original Intent of the Establishment Clause Matthew .C Berger
    University of St. Thomas Law Journal Volume 3 Article 12 Issue 3 Spring 2006 2006 One Nation Indivisible: How Congress's Addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance Offends the Original Intent of the Establishment Clause Matthew .C Berger Bluebook Citation Matthew C. Berger, Comment, One Nation Indivisible: How Congress's Addition of "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance Offends the Original Intent of the Establishment Clause, 3 U. St. Thomas L.J. 629 (2006). This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Throughout American history, public officials, religious leaders, scholars, and ordinary citizens have debated the proper relationship between religion and government. Despite the volume of discussion on this topic, a commonly-accepted answer remains elusive-the is- sue remains one of the primary wedges dividing the American popu- lace. In the past, this debate has centered on taxpayer support for religious institutions' and Sunday operation of postal service^.^ To- day, the discussion has shifted to controversies over the display of religious symbols on public pr~perty,~the use of school vouchers to subsidize religiously-affiliated private school^,^ and the inclusion of "intelligent design" in public school science c~rricula.~Few of these issues have flashed as suddenly into the national consciousness, how- ever, as the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Despite United States Supreme Court dicta alluding to the Pledge of Allegiance as unquestionably con~titutional,~on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that both the 1954 Act * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • “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.
    [Show full text]