Michael Newdow appeals a judgment dismissing his challenge to the constitutionality of the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Newdow argues that the addition of these words by a 1954 federal statute to the previous version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no reference to God) and the daily recitation in the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance, with the added words included, by his daughters public school teacher are violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD) in California. In accordance with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (the Pledge). The California Education Code requires that public schools begin each school day with appropriate patriotic exercises and that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code § 52720 (1989) (hereinafter California statute).1 To implement the California statute, the school district that Newdows daughter attends has promulgated a policy that states, in pertinent part: Each elementary school class [shall] recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
The classmates of Newdows daughter in the EGUSD are led by their teacher in reciting the Pledge codified in federal law. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972). On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words under God after the word Nation. Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (1954 Act). The Pledge is currently codified as I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now found in Title 4.)
Newdow does not allege that his daughters teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to watch and listen as her stateemployed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours [sic] is one nation under God.
Newdows complaint in the district court challenged the constitutionality, under the First Amendment, of the 1954 Act, the California statute, and the school districts policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in recitation of the Pledge. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, but did not seek damages.
The school districts and their superintendents (collectively, school district defendants) filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski held a hearing at which the school district defendants requested that the court rule only on the constitutionality of the Pledge, and defer any ruling on sovereign immunity. The United States Congress, the United States, and the President of the United States (collectively, the federal defendants) joined in the motion to dismiss filed by the school district defendants. The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation; District Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation and entered a judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed.
That is all that need be said. I have noticed that many atheists are not content simply being an atheist, they have the need to pee in the punchbowl to feel validated.
I can't even begin to find the words to respond to this.