Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
542 U.S. 1 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff lacks prudential standing to bring a claim in federal court when their standing is founded on disputed family law rights, and the prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing.
Facts:
- Michael Newdow, an atheist, was the father of a daughter attending public elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District.
- The school district had a policy requiring teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance each day, which includes the phrase 'under God.'
- Newdow's daughter participated in this daily exercise.
- Newdow and the child's mother, Sandra Banning, had a custody arrangement governed by a California state court.
- A state court order granted Banning sole legal custody of the child, giving her the final authority to make decisions regarding the child's health, education, and welfare.
- Banning, a Christian, did not object to her daughter reciting the Pledge and stated her belief that the lawsuit was not in her daughter's best interest.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Newdow filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Elk Grove Unified School District and others.
- The District Court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
- Newdow, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that Newdow had standing and that the Pledge policy violated the Establishment Clause.
- Following the child's mother's motion to intervene, the Ninth Circuit reconsidered the standing issue but reaffirmed that Newdow had standing to sue.
- The Elk Grove Unified School District, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-custodial parent have prudential standing to challenge a public school's policy of leading the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the words 'under God,' on First Amendment grounds when the parent with sole legal custody does not object?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. A non-custodial parent whose parental rights are limited by a state court order lacks prudential standing to challenge the school's policy. The standing doctrine includes a prudential strand that encompasses judicially self-imposed limits on federal jurisdiction. A principal area where federal courts decline to intervene is domestic relations, which are preeminently matters of state law. In this case, Newdow's standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, yet he lacks the right to sue as her 'next friend' due to the state custody order. The interests of Newdow and his daughter are not parallel and are potentially in conflict, as the mother with sole legal custody objects to the suit and believes it will harm the child. It is improper for federal courts to entertain a claim where standing is based on disputed family law rights and the lawsuit could adversely affect the child who is the source of that standing.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
While agreeing with the majority's result of reversing the Ninth Circuit, I would find that Michael Newdow does have standing to bring this suit. The majority improperly creates a new prudential standing rule based on a misapplication of the domestic relations exception, which is a limit on diversity jurisdiction, not a general standing principle. Deferring to the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of California law, Newdow retains sufficient parental rights to establish an injury. On the merits, however, the school district's policy does not violate the Establishment Clause. The phrase 'under God' is a patriotic acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage, not a religious exercise like a prayer. Reciting the Pledge is a patriotic ceremony that does not establish a religion, and to allow one parent a 'heckler's veto' over it is an unwarranted extension of the Clause.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
I concur in the judgment reversing the Ninth Circuit, but would find that Michael Newdow has standing. On the merits, the Pledge policy does not violate the Establishment Clause under the endorsement test. The reference to 'under God' should be viewed through the lens of 'ceremonial deism,' which encompasses practices that, while religious in language, serve secular purposes like solemnizing public occasions. Based on four factors—its history and ubiquity, the absence of worship or prayer, the absence of reference to a particular religion, and its minimal religious content—a reasonable observer would not perceive the Pledge as a government endorsement of religion. Eradicating such ceremonial references would sever ties to the history that sustains the nation.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I concur in the judgment but would find that Michael Newdow has standing. Under existing precedent, specifically Lee v. Weisman's broad definition of psychological coercion, the school's policy is likely unconstitutional. However, Lee was wrongly decided, and more fundamentally, the Establishment Clause should not be incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment because it is a federalism provision designed to prevent Congress from interfering with state religious establishments, not to protect an individual right. Since the Pledge policy does not involve the legal coercion characteristic of a historical 'establishment of religion' and does not violate any free-exercise rights, it is constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision is significant primarily for its use of the prudential standing doctrine to avoid resolving a deeply divisive constitutional question regarding the Establishment Clause. By dismissing the case on a procedural ground related to domestic relations law, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's controversial holding that the Pledge was unconstitutional without setting a national precedent on the merits. The ruling highlights the Court's profound reluctance to adjudicate issues that are intertwined with state family law and creates a potential barrier for non-custodial parents seeking to litigate their children's rights in federal court. The case leaves the constitutionality of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance unresolved for a future challenge by a plaintiff with clear standing.
