Legal Research Analysis & Writing
My second case briefing for my legal research course.
Case Briefing Practice 2
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Rules:
[Religious and political freedom.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sec. 1. [Citizens of the United States.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004).
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962).
Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963).
First Amendment. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) (Burger, C.J.).
Moore v. Sim, 442 U. S. 415, 435 (1979).
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971).
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346-347 (1976).
Analysis:
[pg. 489 paragraph 1]
Elementary school teachers in Elk Grove Unified School District lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance each day. Plaintiff Michael A. Newdow and his daughter’s religious belief is atheist in which shares practice regularly. Two issues are in question relating to Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004). Newdow is challenging the school district policy that reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” is unconstitutional and that the word “under God” violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962). The opinion of the court delivered by Justice Steven is the “First Amendment issue, and preliminarily” U.S.C.S. Const. Amend. 1. Does Newdow have the right to petition the jurisdiction of the federal courts to look at this case. However, the court decision was that the case lacks merit and reverses the Court of Appeals decision.
[ pg. 489 sec. I paragraph 2]
Justice Steven sharing the background of our flag and the Pledge of Allegiance of our past that represent the “freedom, opportunity, religion and goodwill to other peoples” share the same principles. The history behind the Pledge of Allegiance is part of the “discovery of America,” and “the very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country.” Over time the words have changed; the last time was in 1954 by Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.
[ pg. 490 sec II paragraph 1]
In the public schools in California, the law states that “every public elementary school” must recite daily “appropriate patriotic exercises.” However, the School District allows students whose religion does not align with their belief to abstain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The school district is only following state law and fulfilling its legal requirements.
In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent. Newdow filing states he and his daughter’s religious practice and belief is atheist. The complaint is that the word “under God” infringes on their religious beliefs and rights, violating the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution, Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963)., including reciting the Pledge daily. His position to litigate on his behalf and his daughter “next friend.”
On July 21st, 2000, The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdow’s position. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, and the rulings and recommendation concluded, “the Pledge does not violate the Entablement Clause.”
[ Pg. 491 paragraph 1]
The first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing “as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.” There are two challenges which are the policy of the School District also “1954 Act of Congress that amended the Pledge because his “injury in fact” was “fairly traceable” to its enactment,” which both policies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “The government may not establish a religion in the United States. The Establishment Clause provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” U.S. Const. amend. I (1791).
“Derivation: A law respecting the proscribed result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause. A given law might not establish a state religion but nevertheless be one respecting that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment and hence offend the First Amendment. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) (Burger, C.J.).”
Once the Court of Appeals announced their opinion, Sandra Banning, Newdow’s daughter’s mother, motioned to intervene to terminate the complaint. Both parents share “physical custody” of their daughter, but the “family court order “grant the mother” exclusive legal custody of the child.” Banning stated her daughter “believes in God” and “has no objection to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.” Furthermore, Banning said she is the sole legal custodian parent, including representation in a legal matter for the child, asking the court to withdraw the child from Newdow’s lawsuit. The California Superior Court, on September 25th, 2002, ordered from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her “next friend.” However, Newdow Article III standing the court did not address.
The second published opinion The Court of Appeals’ second opinion “reconsidered Newdow’s standing in light of Banning’s motion. “The court noted that the father “no longer claim to represent of his daughter,” and the court agreed “the grant of sole legal custody to Banning.” The court also recognizes Newdow “as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.’ Also, the court acknowledges that Newdow has the right to teach his child his religious belief even if they do not align with the mother because Banning is the “sole legal custodian” and not to take away the father’s rights; as “parental interest.”
On February 28th, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc. Newdow v. U.S Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003) Newdow III). The initial opinion Newdow standing to challenge the 1954 Act. The nine judges reviewed and “granted the School District is a petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School District’s policy, and (2) if so, whether the offends the First Amendment.” However, all federal case, “the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action.” The question of standing is the litigant entitled for the courts to “decide the merits of the dispute.”
[pg. 491 sec. III paragraph 1]
In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. “In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S. Ct. 2197 (1975). Even in the cases within their jurisdiction under Article III, they must follow “a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions press upon [us] for decision.” Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contain two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement, and prudential standing, which embodies the plaintiff needs to show the conduct of which he complains that caused him to suffer an “injury in fact” that a favorable judgment will redress.
[ pg. 492 paragraph 1]
Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement. The Article III standing, limitation on the power to extend to all cases in law arising under the Constitution and the laws of United States. One of the principal areas in which this court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Since domestic relations are not under the jurisdiction of the federal court, but the jurisdiction is under the state law for families of the husband, wife, and the child in which state they reside. However, the federal court “transcends or exits” of “elements of the domestic relationship,” leaving sensitive issues of “preeminently matters of state law.” Moore v. Sim, 442 U. S. 415, 435 (1979).
[ pg. 493 paragraph 1 – 4]
As explained above, the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues, in this case, was not apparent until August 5th, 2002, when Banning “filed a motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision.” The California Superior Court, on February 6th, 2002, ordered that the mother has “sole legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare” of her daughter. The family court order was put in place by the Court of Appeals “standing decision,” but later, there was another hearing on September 11th, 2003, that the parents have “joint legal custody.” The argument is that Newdow’s rights and interests are “inculcating” with his daughter on his religious views and equal rights of the mother. However, Newdow standing that no agency interference on his child’s religious beliefs. “The District Court concluded that the Act violated the Establishment Clause, holding that it fostered “excessive entanglement” between government and religion. In addition two judges thought that the Act had the impermissible effect of giving “significant aid to a religious enterprise.” 316 F.Supp. 112. We affirm.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971).
[ pg. 493 paragraph 5 and pg. 494 paragraph 5]
The interest of the affected person, in this case, is in many antagonistic. Newdow’s standing arises exclusively “from his relationship with his daughter but lack of the right to litigate as her next friend.” However, “Newdow’s parental status is defined by California’s domestic relations law,” and the court cannot restrain or bar a parent or noncustodial parent. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346-347 (1976). The court recognizes that the father has the right to teach his daughter his religious upbringing.
[ pg. 494 paragraph 1]
However, nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious view. Newdow is concerned about his daughter being exposed to religious beliefs in school and the issue that he and Banning do not have an ideology concerning religion for their daughter that aligns. The natural father, Newdow, is concerned with protecting “the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent.” 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Court’s order has deprived Newdow of that status.
[ pg. 494 paragraph 2]
The opinion of the court in our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entrain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claim standing. The question that arises in court on domestic relations has an impact on the result, “the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a cumbersome question of federal constitutional law.” The situation is sensitive in how Newdow’s right to interact with his child “both California law and the First Amendment recognize his claimed right to shield” and to protect his daughter. According to California law, Newdow lacks to sue as “next friend.” The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Greg MD Blog 
Leave a comment