Elk Grove Unified School District V. NewdowFacts: 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 that the pledge constitutes religious indoctrination since it contains the words "under God" and violates the First Amendment. Newdow filed suit in federal district court, arguing that forcing students to listen to the pledge was a violation of their First Amendment rights. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe district court held that the pledge did not violate the First Amendment (establishment clause) and dismissed the affair. Newdow appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, mother Sandra Banning filed a motion to have her daughter removed from the trial. Banning claims her daughter voluntarily participated in the Pledge of Allegiance and that as the mother who has "sole legal custody," Newdow has no rights to her legal claims. The appeals court, after hearing Banning's petition, decided that Newdow still had a case because, under California law, he had the right to expose his child to whatever religious views he wished, even if they conflicted with the mother's views. The appeals court found that both schools' policy and the 1954 law were unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question: Does a “non-custodial” parent have standing to bring an action on behalf of their daughter? Opinion (Stevens, J) No. Newdow has no legal basis to challenge the school's policy and therefore the question of constitutionality is void. Newdow can only pursue school policy in the name of his daughter over whom he has no legal rights. Newdow only has shared physical custody of her daughter while Sandra Banning has full legal custody of their daughter. Once Banning filed the motion to remove their daughter from the lawsuit, Newdow lost all grounds to sue on her behalf. Since federal courts generally do not intervene in domestic matters, the best option is to defer to what California courts have already decided, which is that Newdow does not have legal custody. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayNewdow has no grounds to sue as a “next friend” and therefore cannot challenge school district policy. Adoption (Rehnquist, CJ) The majority misinterpreted the rules relating to domestic relations, an exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts are not allowed to grant divorce, alimony, or reduction of child custody. However, this is not a diversity issue and courts would not issue such things. There is therefore no conflict and the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. If the majority wants to defer to the state courts, they should have gone to the court of appeals, not the district court. Even if this case were heard fairly, both laws were constitutional.