Introduction 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 the state of California. Newdow objected to the requirement that his daughter be obliged to stand for the “Pledge of Allegiance” because it contained the words “under God,” which he believed was a violation of his daughter’s first amendment rights. While the case was adjourned 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 a suit on behalf of his daughter), the case did set a precedent for others who would go on to successfully sue the school district (Kravetz, 2005). This paper will summarize the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School Distrct v. Newdow, discuss the levels of the court through which the case evolved before it reached the Supreme Court, explain the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, examine the fundamental impact that the court decision in question has had on American society in general and on ethics in American society in particular, discuss why I believe 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 that has its roots both in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (unfettered expansionism) and the Cold War mentality of the 1950s, and explain why I think public schools should be allowed to recite or not recite the pledge as their administrators see fit.

Salient Points

The two main questions that arose in the Supreme Court case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow were: 1) Did Newdow have the legal “standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?” and 2) Could a policy of a public school district “that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?” (Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, 2018). While the latter question served as the most important and most substantial issue socially speaking, the Court was content to address only the first question, which by answering in the negative allowed it to avoid address the second question. In other words, by dismissing the case on a technicality, the Supreme Court avoided having to taken a position on the question of whether or not the words of the Pledge were 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 ducked the issue at the heart of the matter. As Branigin and Lane (2004) reported that Newdow nonetheless “rejected the ruling that he lacked legal...

This fight would indeed be continued in a later case by unnamed parents (Kravetz, 2005).
Levels of the Court

Newdow first filed suit at the U.S. District Court level and after losing the case, appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The court found that Newdow had a right to challenge the state based on infringement of the First Amendment right since the Pledge did make express and explicit mention of God and thus was a religious view that could potentially another person’s free speech if forced upon one. As the court pointed out, the issue violated the Establishment Clause of which Congress in the First Amendment stated that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion—and clearly the Pledge of Allegiance obligation in the public school went against that clause in so far as the letter of the law is concerned.

At this point, it was revealed by Sandra Banning the mother of the daughter in question that the daughter was actually a Christian, that the mother had legal custody of the child and that the suit should be dismissed as Newdow did not represent the child. While the court acknowledged Banning having legal custody it did not rescind its view that Newdow had a right to sue. As the case flipped with Banning now pressing to have Newdow’s suit dismissed, the title of the case went from Newdow v. Elk Grove to Elk Grove v. Newdow and was picked up by the Supreme Court. Thus, this case went through three levels of the court system.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision was based entirely on the need to assess whether Newdow was a legal custodian of his daughter at the time the suit was filed. As Newdow was not, the Court decided that the original suit itself was without merit. Thus, the Court avoided having to rule on the issue of whether the Pledge actually violated anyone’s First Amendment rights.

Because the case was a potential powder-keg that could be politically explosive with conservatives on one side and liberals on the other, the Supreme Court was eager to not light the fuse by settling the matter of whether the Pledge was a violation of the First Amendment. Yet even though the Court ruled that Newdow had no standing to file suit as the “next friend” of his daughter rather than as custodian, Justices Rehnquist, Day O’Connor and Thomas dissented with this opinion and therefore went on to examine the issue of whether the Pledge violated the First Amendment.

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 was not compulsory affirmation of religious identity that students were expected to uphold.

Regardless of the dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court effectively took itself off the hook of having to settle the matter as the majority opinion was 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 as the issue was resurrected at the lower level courts in the following years in a…