Newdow v. U.S. Congress

• Decision Date: 26 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-16423.,00-16423.
• Citation: 292 F.3d 597
• Parties: Michael A. NEWDOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US CONGRESS; United States of America; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; State Of California; Elk Grove Unified School District; David W. Gordon, Superintendent EGUSD; Sacramento City Unified School District; Jim Sweeney, Superintendent SCUSD, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

292 F.3d 597

Michael A. NEWDOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.US CONGRESS; United States of America; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; State Of California; Elk Grove Unified School District; David W. Gordon, SuperintendentEGUSD; Sacramento City Unified School District; Jim Sweeney, SuperintendentSCUSD, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-16423.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 14, 2002.

June 26, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael Newdow, Pro Se, Sacramento, California, the plaintiff-appellant.

Kristin S. Door, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for federal government defendants-appellees; A. Irving Scott, Terence J. Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg &amp Delehant, Sacramento, California, for school district defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edward J. Schwartz, Senior Judge, Presiding D.C.No. CV-00-00495-MLS/PAN.

Before: Alfred T. GOODWIN, Stephen REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.

OPINION

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

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 daughter's 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").¹To implement the California statute, the school district that Newdow's 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."²

The classmates of Newdow's 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 daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.³Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is `one nation under God.'"

Newdow's complaint in the district court challenged the constitutionality, under the First Amendment, of the 1954 Act, the Californiastatute, and the school district's 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.

DISCUSSION

A.Jurisdiction

Newdow asks the district court to order the President of the United States ("the President") to "alter, modify or repeal" the Pledge by removing the words "under God"; and to order the United States Congress("Congress")"immediately to act to remove the words `under God' from the Pledge."The President, however, is not an appropriate defendant in an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute.SeeFranklin v. Massachusetts,505 U.S. 788, 802-03, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636(1992)(plurality)(observing that a court of the United States "`has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties'")(quotingMississippi v. Johnson,71 U.S. 475, 501, 18 L.Ed. 437(1866)).

Similarly, in light of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 6, cl. 1, the federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders directing Congress to enact or amend legislation.SeeEastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund,421 U.S. 491, 503, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324(1975).Because the words that amended the Pledge were enacted into law by statute, the district court may not direct Congress to delete those words any more than it may order the President to take such action.All this, of course, is aside from the fact that the President has no authority to amend a statute or declare a law unconstitutional, those functions being reserved to Congress and the federal judiciary respectively.

Newdow nevertheless argues that because the 1954 Act violates the Establishment Clause, Congress should not be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.This argument misses the jurisdictional, or separation of powers, point.As the Court held in Eastland, in determining whether or not the acts of members of Congress are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, the court looks solely to whether or not the acts fall within the legitimate legislative sphere; if they do, Congress is protected by the absolute prohibition of the Clause against being "questioned in any other Place."Id. at 501."If the mere allegation that a valid legislative act was undertaken for an unworthy purpose would lift the protection of the Clause, then the Clause simply would not provide the protection historically undergirding it."Id. at 508-09, 95 S.Ct. 1813.Although the district court lacks jurisdiction over the President and the Congress, the question of the constitutionality of the 1954 Act remains before us.While the court correctly dismissed the claim against those parties, it survives against others.

B.The State of California as a defendant

The State of California did not join in the motion to dismiss or otherwise participate in the district court proceedings.It did, however, sub silentio, receive the benefit of the district court's ruling dismissing the complaint.Accordingly, a reversal of the order would result in the reinstatement of the complaint against the state.With respect to the validity of the California statute, however, unlike in the case of the Congressional enactment and the school district policy, no arguments, legal or otherwise, were advanced by the parties either below or here.Thus, we do not address separately the validity of the California statute.

C.Standing

Article III standing is a jurisdictional issue.SeeUnited States v. Viltrakis,108 F.3d 1159, 1160(9th Cir.1997).Accordingly, it "may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal."SeeA-Z Intern. v. Phillips,179 F.3d 1187, 1190-91(9th Cir.1999).To satisfy standing requirements, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) it has suffered an `injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.,528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610(2000)(citingLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351(1992)).

Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter."Parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing to protect their right."Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321,177 F.3d 789, 795(9th Cir.1999)(en banc);see alsoGrove v. Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354,753 F.2d 1528, 1532(9th Cir.1985)("Appellants have standing to challenge alleged violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment if they are directly affected by use of [the challenged book] in the English curriculum.[Appellant] has...