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 law suit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.
Newdow is an
atheist and an ordained minister of the
Universal Life Church. In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong
separation of church and state in public institutions.
[, evolvefish.com]Personal background
Newdow grew up in the
Bronx and
Teaneck, New Jersey, from where his nominally
Jewish family moved in 1960. He graduated from
Teaneck High School. He told
Brown Alumni Magazine that he can’t remember ever believing in God, saying, "I was born an
atheist."
[ By Zachary Block, Brown Alumni Magazine, May-June 2004. Retrieved on August 26, 2007]After graduating from high school, Newdow attended
Brown University, where he received a
Bachelor of Science Degree in
Biology in 1974. He then attended the
UCLA medical school, earning his
M.D. in 1978. He has worked as an
emergency room physician at numerous
hospitals, and holds medical licenses in
California and five other states.
Newdow later enrolled in the
University of Michigan law school, earning a
law degree in 1988. He took and passed the
bar exam in 2002.
Litigation
Pledge of Allegiance
Newdow is best known for
the lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the
United States'
Pledge of Allegiance. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of
religion, and therefore violates the
Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the
Supreme Court of the United States on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have
custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the
right to bring suit on her behalf, nor did he meet the Court's
prudential standing requirements to bring the suit on behalf of himself.
Newdow filed suit again in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the
precedent set by the Supreme Court in the course of Newdow's previous suit, Judge
Lawrence K. Karlton ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring his lawsuit, but the other plaintiffs did have standing. Based on the previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the judge ruled that the pledge is
unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
After the Ninth Circuit decision, Newdow received numerous death threats and other abusive messages on his phone answering machine. His daughter, then eight years old, was living elsewhere for her own safety.
[, Time, 2002-06-29]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."
In June 2006, a federal judge rejected this lawsuit, on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and they do not dictate anyone's beliefs. Newdow stated that he would appeal the ruling. Although, it should be noted that
Aronow v. United States was decided on the same grounds in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the lower court was required to return the same ruling, likewise the Ninth Circuit does not traditionally overrule previous Ninth Circuit rulings.
On December 4, 2007, Newdow argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to remove both "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (Roe v. Rio Linda Union School District), and "In God We Trust" from US currency.
In a 2006 interview on the day that the
United States House of Representatives passed the
Pledge Protection Act, Newdow told
WERS-FM's David Goodman, "A few hours ago, the
House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the
U.S. Constitution of its
separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the
Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the
Establishment Clause forbids."
Newdow also filed a lawsuit in
federal court after
Franklin Graham gave the invocation at
George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration. The lawsuit claimed that inaugural prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. It also was unsuccessful.
California textbook case
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 upon by CAPEEM which was formed by
Hindu parents in California.
Obama inauguration
On December 31, 2008, Newdow and 17 other people, plus 10 groups representing atheists, sued
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and others involved in the
inauguration of Barack Obama in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to prevent the Chief Justice from saying "so help me God." The
Constitution specifically defines only this single oath of office of 35 words and does not include these four words.
The Associated Press ran several reports including one picked up by ''
The Washington Post' and many other affiliates that inaccurately stated that the suit was an attempt by atheists to prevent the President from saying "so help me God." The suits specifically states that an injunction is not sought against the president, but rather only against the Chief Justice.
In addition, in other counts was the demand to end all religious prayer at the inauguration based on the establishment clause of the first amendment, which he had sued to prevent in the two previous inaugurations unsuccessfully.
Judge
Reggie Walton refused to grant Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that as a
district court judge he did not feel he had the authority to issue such an order against the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and that the inclusion of such words is an exercise of the incoming President's right of free speech, although the president's right to express his private prayer in words of his choosing was specifically not challenged in the law suit.
Newdow later reported that he would not challenge the denial of his preliminary injunction motion, but will appeal the case through the appellate court.
Awards
In November 2002, Newdow was given the Freethinker of the Year award by the
Freedom From Religion Foundation following the Pledge case. In 2002, he received the special Recognition Freethought Hero Award for his case to remove "In God We Trust" from currency.
In May 2004, the American Humanist Association gave Newdow its Humanist Pioneer Award.
See also
