CASE DIGEST : NEWDOW vs.

US Congress So that it is not in violation of the

FACTS:
In Newdow vs US Congress, Michael Newdow
challenged the constitutionality of the 1954 Act and
the school district policy for being violative of the
establishment clause of the US Constitution when
the said Act added the words “under God” in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag which was recited
regularly in the public elementary school.
Michael Newdow is an atheist whose daughter
attends a public elementary school in California. It is
the school’s policy to regularly practice the teacher-
led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
However, in 1954, the 1954 Act was passed by the
US Congress amending the 1942 Pledge by inserting
the words “under God” in it. Eventhough the
students were not required to participate in the
recitation of the Pledge, Newdow alleged that his
daughter was compelled to watch and listen to her
classmates in reciting the amended Pledge. Newdow
averred that both the 1954 Act and the school
district policy are in violation of the establishment
clause of the US Constitution, thus, should be
declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
WON the 1954 Act and the school district policy are
unconstitutional for being violative of the
establishment clause.
RULING:
The Court ruled that YES, both the 1954 Act and the
school district policy are in violation of the
establishment clause in the realm of public
education using the 3 interrelated tests.
establishment clause.
Moreover, under the Endorsement Test, the
questioned:
1. Must not have excessive government
entanglement with religious
institutions; and
2. There is no government endorsement
or disapproval of religion in order for
the said conduct not to be in violation
of the establishment clause.
Lastly, under the coercion test, the government does
not violate the establishment clause unless:
1. It provides direct aid to religion; or
2. It coerces people to participate or
support a religion against their will.
In the present case, the statement that the US
nation is under God is an endorsement of religion
and not a mere acknowledgement that many
Americans believe in God. The language used in the
Pledge revealed that the very purpose of the Act is
to take a position in the question of theism while
denying the atheist concepts, thus, both the Lemon
and Endorsement test have failed. Also, when the
act or the policy place the students in a position of
choosing between participating in the recitation or
protesting, the government conduct also failed the
coercion test. Considering that the questioned act
and policy failed the 3 tests for constitutionality
under the establishment clause, hence, both the
1954 act and the school district policy are declared
unconstitutional.

The 3 tests used to analyze whether a statute or

policy is in violation of the said clause are the
LEMON TEST, ENDORSEMENT TEST & COERCION
TEST.

Under the Lemon test, the questioned conduct:

1. Must have a secular purpose;

2. Must have a principal effect that neither
advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. Must not foster excessive government
entanglement with religion,