Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

United States Supreme Court
542 U.S. 1 (2004)


Facts

Michael Newdow’s (plaintiff) daughter attended a public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California (defendant). Each day, teachers at the school led the students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the words “under God.” Michael Newdow, an atheist, brought suit in federal district court in California arguing that Elk Grove’s act of making the students listen—even if they chose not to participate—to the words “under God” each day violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who concluded that “the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.” The district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Newdow appealed and Sandra Banning, the mother of his daughter, filed a motion to have her daughter dismissed as a party to the lawsuit on the grounds that (1) a state-court order granted her "exclusive legal custody" of her daughter and (2) her daughter did not personally object to saying the Pledge of Allegiance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered Newdow’s case in light of Banning’s motion and reversed, holding that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow of his standing to challenge the school’s policy and that, under California law, Newdow had the right to expose his child to his particular religious views, even if those views contradicted the mother's. The court of appeals also held that the school’s policy, as well as the Congressional Act in 1954 which first added the words “under God” to the Constitution both violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the standing and First Amendment issues.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is for members only. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Issue

The issue section is for members only and includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Concurrence (Rehnquist, C.J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Here's why 10,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 7,515 briefs - keyed to 85 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now