This paper examines the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which Michael Newdow challenged the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds. The paper traces the case through the district and appellate courts, explains how the Supreme Court dismissed it on a standing technicality rather than ruling on its constitutional merits, and evaluates the ongoing societal impact of that decision. It also argues that the Pledge is best understood as a politically motivated activity rooted in Cold War ideology rather than a genuine religious or patriotic obligation, and concludes that individual school communities should determine their own Pledge policies.
In the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, Michael Newdow filed a suit on behalf of his daughter, who was a student at the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. Newdow objected to the requirement that his daughter stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the words "under God," which he believed violated her First Amendment rights. While the case was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court without the actual substance of the case being addressed — Newdow was found to be a non-custodial parent and therefore legally unable to file suit on behalf of his daughter — the case nonetheless set a precedent for others who would go on to successfully sue the school district (Kravetz, 2005).
This paper summarizes the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, discusses the levels of the court through which the case evolved before it reached the Supreme Court, and explains the Supreme Court's decision. It also examines the fundamental impact that the decision has had on American society and on ethics in particular, argues that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is neither a religious issue nor a sign of respect for the United States but rather a politically motivated activity rooted in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and the Cold War mentality of the 1950s, and explains why public schools should be allowed to recite or not recite the Pledge as their administrators see fit.
The two main questions that arose in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow were: (1) Did Newdow have the legal standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? And (2) could such a policy — one that includes the words "under God" — violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 2018). While the latter question was the more socially significant issue, the Court chose to address only the first, and by answering it in the negative, avoided ruling on the second. In other words, by dismissing the case on a technicality, the Supreme Court avoided taking a position on whether the words of the Pledge constituted a violation of the First Amendment.
As Justice Stevens (2004) wrote in the Court's decision, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law." By finding that Newdow did not have legal standing to act as his daughter's guardian and sue on her behalf, the Court avoided the issue at the heart of the matter. As Branigin and Lane (2004) reported, Newdow nonetheless "rejected the ruling that he lacked legal standing to speak for his daughter," vowing to continue his fight against the Pledge. This fight would indeed be continued in a later case brought by unnamed parents (Kravetz, 2005).
Newdow first filed suit at the U.S. District Court level. After losing that case, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court found that Newdow had a right to challenge the state on the grounds of First Amendment infringement, since the Pledge made express and explicit mention of God and thus reflected a religious viewpoint that could potentially infringe upon another person's free speech if forced upon them. As the court pointed out, the obligation to recite the Pledge in public school potentially violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
At this point, Sandra Banning — the mother of the daughter in question — revealed that the child was actually a Christian, that she herself held legal custody, and that the suit should be dismissed because Newdow did not represent the child. While the court acknowledged Banning's legal custody, it did not rescind its view that Newdow had a right to sue. As the case shifted, with Banning now pressing to have Newdow's suit dismissed, the title of the case changed from Newdow v. Elk Grove to Elk Grove v. Newdow, and the case was taken up by the Supreme Court. In total, this case passed through three levels of the court system.
The Supreme Court's decision turned entirely on the question of whether Newdow was the legal custodian of his daughter at the time the suit was filed. Finding that he was not, the Court concluded that the original suit was without merit, thereby avoiding any ruling on whether the Pledge actually violated anyone's First Amendment rights.
Because the case was a potential powder keg — politically explosive, with conservatives on one side and liberals on the other — the Supreme Court was eager not to light the fuse by settling the question of whether the Pledge violated the First Amendment. Nevertheless, even though the Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to file suit as the "next friend" of his daughter rather than as her custodian, Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas dissented from this position and went on to examine whether the Pledge violated the First Amendment on its merits.
Justice Rehnquist held the opinion that the "under God" clause did not explicitly affirm any one religion but rather simply highlighted the religious heritage of the nation, and therefore did not represent a compulsory affirmation of religious identity that students were expected to uphold.
Regardless of those dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court effectively avoided having to settle the matter. The majority held that Newdow lacked standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter, and thus the case was dismissed. It was not, however, the end of the matter. The issue was resurrected at the lower court level in subsequent years in a new suit filed by parents who did have standing. Having surfaced and captured public attention, the argument that the Pledge endorsed a religious viewpoint was not going to disappear.
"Dismissal leaves society and lower courts divided"
"Pledge as Cold War political tool, not religious symbol"
"Local communities should determine their own Pledge policy"
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow set the stage for a landmark Supreme Court decision — but the Court backed down and dismissed the case on a technicality. The dissenting opinions of three Justices indicated that, in their view, the Pledge should not be considered a violation of the First Amendment; yet the dismissal meant that no definitive answer would be forthcoming from the nation's highest court. This opened the door for further litigation, with Newdow leading the way. The U.S. District Court subsequently held that the Pledge did violate the First Amendment, while the Appeals Court disagreed. For now, the matter appears both resolved and unresolved, and the intertwined questions of prayer in school, national history, politics, and identity all remain implicated in this single case.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.