October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1624
Can a parent sue a school district over the Pledge of Allegiance?
A father challenged his daughter's school district. He argued the daily Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Cassidy argued the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause. He stated the Ninth Circuit decision was incorrect. He claimed acknowledging religion's role is not an endorsement.
Mr. Olson argued the father lacks the right to sue. He stated the father has no independent legal right. He claimed the father cannot challenge his daughter's education conditions.
Mr. Newdow argued the Pledge violates the Constitution. He stated his daughter is required to stand and recite it. He maintained the school's policy is unconstitutional.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-43
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case centers on a father's legal standing. He sued the school district that enrolled his daughter. The district argued he lacked the right to sue on her behalf.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 24, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-43
What each side wants
The school district wants the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. It argues the father lacks the legal right to sue for his daughter.
The father wants the Supreme Court to keep the lower court's ruling. He argues the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
What each side says
The school district argues the father has no independent legal right. He cannot challenge his daughter's education conditions in federal court.
The father argues the daily recitation of the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause. He claims the school endorses religion through this practice.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the advocates to proceed with their arguments. He then closed the session by stating the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-43
Why it matters
This case defines who can challenge school policies. It clarifies the legal standing of parents in federal courts. The outcome shapes the scope of parental rights in education disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 41-43
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 29-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.