Pledge of Allegiance Michael Newdow

newdow best known lawsuit states filed on behalf of daughter against inclusion of words under god in public schools recitals of united states pledge of allegiance. united states court of appeals ninth circuit found phrase constitutes endorsement of religion, , therefore violates establishment clause of first amendment united states constitution. however, decision later overruled supreme court of united states on procedural grounds, citing newdow did not have custody of daughter , therefore did not have right bring suit on behalf, nor did meet court s prudential standing requirements bring suit on behalf of himself.

newdow filed suit again in united states district court eastern district of california regarding same issue, time on behalf of 3 unnamed parents , children. citing precedent set supreme court in course of newdow s previous suit, judge lawrence k. karlton ruled newdow did not have standing bring lawsuit, other plaintiffs did have standing. based on previous ruling ninth circuit, judge ruled pledge unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

on march 11, 2010, united states court of appeals ninth circuit upheld words under god in pledge of allegiance in case of newdow v. rio linda union school district. on page 60 of ruling court writes: hold california education code - 52720 , school district s policy having teachers lead students in recitation of pledge, , having not wish participate impunity, not violate establishment clause. therefore reverse decision of district court holding school district s policy unconstitutional , vacate permanent injunction prohibiting recitation of pledge willing students. court ruled against newdow in had no prudential standing file complaint in first place. senior circuit judge dorothy w. nelson joined judge carlos t. bea in ruling, judge stephen reinhardt dissented.