Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow Facts: Michael Newdow's daughter attended public school in California. Teachers lead their students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every day. Michael Newdow is an atheist and believes the Oath is religious indoctrination as it contains the words "under God" and violates the First Amendment. Newdow filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming that having students listen to the Pledge was a violation of their First Amendment rights. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The district court found that the promise did not violate the First Amendment (Establishment Clause) and dismissed the case. Newdow appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, mother Sandra Banning filed a motion to have her daughter removed from the lawsuit. Banning claims that her daughter voluntarily participated in the Pledge of Allegiance and that because her mother has "sole legal custody," Newdow is not entitled to her legal claims. The appeals court, after hearing Banning's motion, decided that Newdow still had a case because it was his right under California law to expose his son to whatever religious views he wished, even if they conflicted with the views of the mother. The 1954 policy and law were unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issue: Does a “non-custodial” parent have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter? Opinion (Stevens, J) No. Newdow has no legal basis to challenge the school's policy and therefore the question of constitutionality is null and void. Newdow can only sue school policy on behalf of his daughter to whom he has no legal rights. Newdow only has shared physical custody of her daughter while Sandra Banning has full legal custody of her daughter. Once Banning filed the motion to remove his daughter from the lawsuit, Newdow lost any reason to sue on her behalf. Since federal courts don't typically intervene in national matters, the next best option is to defer to what California courts have already decided, which is that Newdow has no legal custody. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayNewdow does not have grounds to sue as a "next friend" and therefore cannot challenge the school district's policy. Competition (Rehnquist, CJ) Majority misinterpreted internal relations rules, exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts are not authorized to issue divorces, alimony, or reductions in child custody, however, this is not a diversity issue and the courts would issue no such thing. Therefore, there is no conflict and the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. If the majority wanted to defer to the state courts, they should have gone to the court of appeals and not the district court. Even if this case had been fairly heard, both acts were constitutional.