ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NEWDOW, NO. 02-1624
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624
Introduction
On 24th march, 2004 the case between Elk Grove Unified School District and Newdow was heard in the U.S supreme court. The court was to determine and rule on two essential issues concerning the case. The Supreme Court was therefore to determine whether Newdow who was the plaintiff and a noncustodial parent had standing in challenging recitation of the pledge by Elk Grove Unified School District. If the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff then, it was also to determine whether the policy of recitation affronts the United States First amendment on the same.
Therefore, on 14th of June, 2004, the Supreme Court made a decision a ruling on the case. Through Justice Paul Stevens opinion writing, of the eight justices who participated in the ruling, five found that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, wasn’t in order in taking the case as he claimed, “the next friend” of the daughter since Banning Sandra was the one with solitary legal custody of the child as at that time; this included even the authority over the child’s education. In addition to this, they found that the plaintiff, Mr. Michael Newdow had no prudential standing in taking the case on his own behalf owing the custody agreement. The Supreme Court was composed of eight justices since Justice Scalia Antonin excused himself having publicly pointed out that he was likely to support the phrase "under God."
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the term “under God” be retained in the loyalty pledge as it has been in the recitations. All the eight judges who partook in the ruling voted in opposition to the ruling that had been made by the federal appeals court which could have barred the usage of the phrase in the pledge of allegiance. Making the ruling on the case, the Supreme Court based their judgments on the following:
The supreme court found it that the federal courts acted improperly by entertaining an allegation from a plaintiff whose prosecution is based on the laws that protect the rights of the family disputed; especially when the lawsuit prosecution could adversely affect the person whom the plaintiff’s has his/her standing. The court thus found the plaintiff, Mr. Michael Newdow not having any legal authority over the claimed child. So his grounds of challenging the recitation of pledge of allegiance under the title ‘next friend to the’ weren’t within the law and could not be entertained in the judgment. The plaintiff, Mr. Newdow had asserted that his constitutional right as a parent to influence the daughter’s spiritual perceptions was being breached by the daily recitations of the pledge of allegiance. Based on the family rights law, the five judges noticed that the claimed daughter was at the center of guardianship dispute between Sandra Banning and Michael Newdow. However, Banning Sandra who was the one with solitary legal authority over the child wanted the daughter to continue with the recitation of the pledge (Rachel, 2005).
The three court members including Chief Justice Rehnquist William, Justice Thomas Clarence and Justice Sandra Connor gave remarks on lawful issue that made this an intense case of church-state in the recent history. All echoed that the phrase, “under God” is amounts not to a veto of religious assertion. According to Justice Rehnquist William, the phrase “under God” endorses not religion on the Americans but does rather acknowledge the religious custom of the country. Thus he said that the pledge isn’t indoctrination as claimed by the plaintiff. On his side, Justice Thomas Clarence said that the claim pledge is unconstitutional and by extension compels the students indirectly to pray.
Thus the ninth circuit was reversed according to the procedural law. The justices who participated in the ruling and ruled against the ruling included Stephen Brayer, Ruth Ginsburg, Souter David, Kennedy Anthony, and Paul Stevens. Other judges who included the chief justice Rehnquist William, Sandra D. Connor and Thomas Clarence did consented to the ninth Circuit reversal but dissented on the standing issue. They believed that the plaintiff had the standing of taking the case to court. And they did not find the see any offense against the constitution by doing that (Rachel, 2005)
Levels of the court in the case evolution
Newdow filed a suit against on 14th March 2000 in the USA, California District court on behalf of the eastern district of California against the USA president, USA congress, Californian state, Elk Grove Unified School District as well as the superintendent of the school ( Rachel, 2005)
This case was passed on to a Magistrate Judge, who made some precise findings and concluded that there were no violations of the Establishment Clause. Therefore, the district court embraced these findings and applied to the case thus dismissing it on 21st of July 2000.
Thereafter, there was a reversal of the order and gave three separate decisions on elaborating Newdow’s standing and the merits following a separate order from the court of appeals. These were the opinions on which the court of appeals decided:
Newdow I – 26th June, 2002
a panel of three judges which listened to the case unanimously found Michael Newdow was was constitutional in order to stand as one of the parents in challenging the practice which did interfere with the his constitutional right to guide the his daughter’s religious perception. Thus, based on the case’s merit, this panel on behalf of the court reversed the decision of the trial court and the judge Alfred Godwin wrote the opinion of the majority while judge Fernandez Ferdinand wrote the wrote the partial dissentient and partial concurrence (Mauro, 2003).
This panel reviewed the case according to the lemon test, coercion test and endorsement test. Thus, the court decided that inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge was violating the Establishment clause. However, on the partial dissentient, Ferdinand said that it the religious aspect of the Pledge was so small and thus below the judicial notice.
Newdow II – 4th December, 2002
The June 26th decision triggered Banning Sandra who is the mother’s child to file a motion which was to intervene or possibly dismiss the protest of Newdow. In her filing, when categorically noted that though both of them (with Newdow) had shared the custody of the daughter, she had an order from a Californian court which exclusively granted her the child’s legal custody which also included the private right of representing her in all legal issues and decision making in regard to her welfare and education. She also added that she had no objection in her daughter reciting the pledge since the daughter is a believer in God. She confirmed her belief that there would be harm on the daughter should the litigation be permitted (Mauro, 2003).
In this second opinion of the court, the court claimed that Newdow had no legal standing in representing the daughter. The conclusion of the judges however, was unanimous that the legal custody of the mother could not deny him the non-custodial standing. Thus the court maintained that the right of Newdow was paramount as compared to the mother’s perceptions thus he was on course to shape the child’s religious views. (Mauro, 2003).
Newdow III – 28th February, 2003
The plaintiff decided to seek for en banc. However, he was denied this and in February 2003, a rectified order and changed opinion was issued to him. This amended opinion mislaid the omitted the early view on possible en banc. It then refused to give a declaratory relief on the legality in reference to the Act of 1954.However, on 11th September, 2003; an award was given to Newdow which recognized the partial custodial rights on the daughter ( Mauro, 2003).
So, the Supreme Court gave a writ of certiorari to the School District's petition in consideration of two main questions i.e.
- If was found so, did the policy violate the First Amendment?
Explain the decision of the Supreme Court in this case in brief.
The decision of the Supreme Court was constitutional. From the sequential references to the law, the majority of the judges ruled and had made the decision. Were it not for the Supreme Court’s decision, people could have had it difficult to establish justice as per the law. I applaud the decision.
Explain the fundamental impact that the court decision in question has had on American society in general and on ethics in American society in particular. Provide a rationale for the response.
The court decision enhanced the people’s believe in the rule of law. It has reaffirmed to them that United States of America is ethically awake and let the laws of the land to rule.
This is based on the ruling which was very consistent and in harmony with the law especially according to the first amendment’s clause; Establishment Clause as per the United States Constitution. Discuss whether you believe that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious issue or a sign of respect for the United States.
First, I have to acknowledge that the Pledge of allegiance is a national thing. As a national property, it is more of politics than religion. The main focus is to pledge our loyalty to our country. If it was religious allegiance, don’t we know our religions? I fully support that pledge of allegiance is in the respect of our lovely country United States of America.
Secondly, pledge of allegiance cannot be a religious issue due to its thematic role. The point of focus is the country and to the president. It is very specific that we are just confirming how loyal we will be tour president and to our country. Is the president a religion? Is the United States a religion? Of course no. having a pledge of allegiance is a political strategy to help us move in harmony. I maintain that pledge of allegiance simply shows our respect to United States.
Discuss whether or not you think public schools should be allowed to recite the pledge.
I believe that public schools should be allowed to recite the pledge. This is because; the pledge of allegiance is for all citizens of the country. There is no distinction in the constitution or any other reason that allows them to do otherwise. However, as citizens of the great country, USA they should participate in this national duty of recitation of the pledge.
I also support recitation of the pledge in the public schools for those institutions are categorically for learning. We should be therefore ready to teach and learn basics of national cohesion and symbols of unity in our schools. How do expect to teach the importance of the flag or the national anthem while people are out of schools? It is at this stage that such important national requirements are passed to the public. Then, to make the pledge to stick in their minds, we can’t tell them to go and recite at home. It is necessary that the pledge be recited in all public places, including public schools.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court exercised high degree of democracy. Though after the ruling there were divided opinions among the citizens, I consider it maturity in exercising the bestowed power in the hands of individual’s for the benefit of all. When the chief justice who is the president of the Supreme Court lost and accepted the ruling of the majority, who are we to antagonize the law implementers? Let us accept the rulings for not any single ruling will favor everybody in the society. Majority is where the majority wins and life continues.
References:
Mauro, T. (September 18, 2003).Legal Times : Pledge challengerGets Partial Custody. Print.
Rachel P. (2005) Journal of Gender, Social Policy and Law: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Washington: Digital Commons @ Washington College of Law
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (2004) ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al. No. 02-1624. Argued March 24, 2004-Decided June 14, 2004
