who was the attorney in the newdow case

by Barbara Witting DDS Published 2 years ago Updated 1 year ago 8 min read

Who is Michael Newdow and what is his case?

Oct 21, 2014 · MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS RESPONDENT SUPPORTING PETITIONERS. THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General Counsel of Record PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General PAUL D. CLEMENT Deputy Solicitor …

Who is John Newdow?

Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician.He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation …

What was the Supreme Court's response to Newdow's case?

Oct 21, 2014 · MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General Counsel of Record ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General PAUL D. CLEMENT Deputy Solicitor General GREGORY G. …

What was the outcome of Newdow v Carey?

May 28, 2014 · Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Michael J. Byars, Benjamin Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants–Appellees.

Who is Michael Newdow?

When did Newdow say "in God we trust"?

In November 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have " In God We Trust " removed from U.S. coins and banknotes. In a November 14, 2005 interview with Fox News 's Neil Cavuto, Newdow compared "In God We Trust" appearing on United States currency with racial segregation (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying, "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them [whites and blacks] got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's okay to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's okay to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs."

Who is the plaintiff in the CAPEEM lawsuit?

Newdow also represents California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a group that has filed a lawsuit against the officials of California Department of Education and the California State Board of Education. The lawsuit challenges the teaching of biblical events as historical facts and was brought by CAPEEM, which was formed by Hindu parents in California. CAPEEM eventually settled the lawsuit for $175,000.

Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional?

Based on the previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the judge ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.

When did the Supreme Court hear the Newdow case?

U.S. Supreme Court. On March 24, 2004 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow had standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School District's policy on recitation of the Pledge, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the First Amendment.

Who wrote the majority opinion in the Newdow case?

The majority opinion was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin with a partial concurrence and partial dissent written by Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez .

Who sued Elk Grove Unified School District?

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento, California attorney and emergency medicine physician, filed suit in March 2000 against the Elk Grove Unified School District. Newdow sued as the next friend on behalf of his daughter, who was enrolled in the Elk Grove public schools. He said the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and that, as such, the daily recitation of the Pledge with the offending words interfered with his right to inculcate his daughter with his religious beliefs.

Who is Sandra Banning?

After the June opinion was issued, Sandra Banning—the mother of the child in question (Newdow and Banning were not married) filed a motion to intervene or, alternatively, to dismiss Newdow's complaint. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a California court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent her legal interests and make all decisions about her education and welfare. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Banning said she believed her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her father's atheist views. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughter's sole legal custodian, that it was not in the child's interest to be a party to Newdow's lawsuit.

What was the reaction to the Ninth Circuit decision?

Public and congressional reaction to the Ninth Circuit's decision was decidedly negative. About 150 Members of Congress stood on the front steps of the Capitol and recited the Pledge including the words under God; and the Senate passed a non-binding resolution affirming the presence of under God by a unanimous vote.

Overview

U.S. District Court Case

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento, California attorney and emergency medicine physician, filed suit in March 2000 against the Elk Grove Unified School District. Newdow sued as the next friendon behalf of his daughter, who was enrolled in the Elk Grove public schools. He said the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and that, as such, the daily recitation of the Pledge with the offending words interfered with his right …

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit issued three opinions in the case, as outlined below.
A three-judge panel of the court unanimously found Newdow had standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. On the merits of the case, the court reversed the trial court decision on a 2-to-1 vote, on June 26, 2002. The majority opinion was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwinwith a partial concurrence an…

U.S. Supreme Court

On March 24, 2004 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow had standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School District's policy on recitation of the Pledge, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scaliarecused himself from the case after a request by Newdow that cited Scali…

External links

• Text of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)
• Oral Argument
• Ninth Circuit decision