Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdo

542 U.S. 1 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Under California law, 'every public elementary school' must begin each day with 'appropriate patriotic exercises.' The statute provides that '[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy' this requirement. Every day D leads their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. In March 2000, P filed suit in the United States District Court. P's daughter was enrolled in kindergarten and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. P is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that 'espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.' P seeks a declaration that the 1954 Act's addition of the words 'under God' violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction against D's policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge. It alleges that P has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as 'next friend.' The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and P's standing. It first held that P has standing. The girl's mother then filed a motion to intervene because she had sole custody of the girl. She expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her father's atheist views. It was not in her daughter's best interest to be a party to P's lawsuit. The California Superior Court entered an order enjoining P from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her 'next friend.' The Court of Appeals reconsidered. It unanimously concluded that 'the grant of sole legal custody to Banning' did not deprive P, 'as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.' Under state law, P retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mother's, and that Banning's objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat P's right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests. The Court of Appeals then issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review. The Supreme Court granted D's petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether P has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the D's policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the First Amendment.