
By shelbie Martello and India Richey


An atheist man, Michael Newdow (the plaintiff) has a
little girl who attends a normal elementary (Elk grove
Unified the defendant) school and every day just like
we used to and still do on Mondays they say the
pledge of Allegiance, this is not a requirement of the
school to say.
Newdow believes that because the words “ Under
God” are used even if his daughter chooses to not say
the pledge it violates the First Amendment.




The District Court and judge dismisses the case because of
Newdows “lack for standing.” Because he and the mother of his
daughter are divorced, and he does not have custody.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court then
says that Newdow does have standing saying “it interferes with
his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.”
The Circuit also ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding “Under
God” to the pledge and the school districts requiring it to be
said both violated the First Amendment.
The mother and x wife of Newdow files a complaint to
intervene and dismiss the case because she had the custody of
the daughter and her religious views are different. The standing
objective to the unconstitutional of the government affecting
the child the Ninth Circuit Court held under the California Law
Newdow retains the expose his religious views to his daughter
even if the mother views the case differently.


Does Newdow have the standings to challenge a
public school district policy that requires teachers
to lead students in the saying the pledge?
Does the Policy violate the First Amendment?

Some believe that the
Pledge is more like a
prayer compared to just
something that is in the
Christian religion and no
every one is a Christian.
Not the opinion of
everyone.
Dissenting

The Pledge is not a
prayer and just because
it says “Under God” its
not forcing anyone to a
certain religion. The
pledge is to honor
America.
Opposing



The final decision made by the Supreme Court, 8
votes to 0, was that Newdow did not full custody of
his daughter therefore he didn’t receive his standings.
The courts ordered the case as undecided and did not
answer the constitutional argument.
All members of the Supreme Court wrote that it was
constitutional to have the teachers led the children in
the pledge.




People are still arguing over this issue today
due today.
Some people believe that this was written to
make peace with people and for everyone to
come together under different beliefs, and
how to keep a civil government.
Will it be taken out of the Pledge of
Allegiance?
Are Amendments contradicting throughout
the government?





Elk grove unified school v. Newdow. Oyez.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2003/2003_02_1624
Elk Grove Unified School Distict et ect..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624
Supremecourt of the united States.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/021624.ZS.html
Court narrows Newdow Pledge Case. ProCon.org
The goal of the pledge suit. Newdow.
Beliefnet.com