The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized very early on that this was fundamentally a religious issue when it found that Newdow, as a father, had standing to bring his suit in the first place. According to the Court:
- Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
This set the stage for considering whether or not the Pledge has enough of a religious component to prevent the State from endorsing it or leading children in recitation of it. Although being affected is one component of standing, another is harm. If Newdow could not demonstrate harm, then the suit would be dismissed. Many people who object to the decision base their argument on the idea that there is no harm done because the students are not compelled to recite the Pledge.
The Court, however, accepted the Supreme Court precedent that the mere enactment of a policy by a school district could be held to cause harm to students and/or parents if that policy violates the separation of church and state. One case was Wallace v. Jaffree, where the Supreme Court found that a law which listed “silent prayer” as a possible use for a moment of silence was unconstitutional, even though no students were forced to pray.
Another precedent cited was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, where the Court upheld a challenge to a school policy of permitting, but not requiring, prayer led by a student at football games. Here the Supreme Court held that the government violates the Constitution by the “mere passage ...of a policy that has the purpose and perception of government establishment of religion.” Thus, it isn’t necessary for a student to participate in prayers or the Pledge in order to be harmed when the government endorses and encourages participation.
« Background Information | Decision on Endorsement & Coercion »
