Michael Newdow's cause isn't very popular.
In June 2002, a federal appeals court upheld Newdow's assertion that his local school district violated his constitutional right to the separation of church and state by requiring his daughter to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow, an atheist living outside of Sacramento, objects to the phrase "one nation under God" and will argue his case in the Supreme Court on March 24.
Only hours after the ruling, the Senate voted unanimously to denounce it. Tom Daschle said the court's decision was "just nuts," according to The New York Times. George W. Bush called it "ridiculous." A Newsweek poll released on June 29, 2002, found that almost 90 percent of Americans thought the phrase "under God" should remain in the pledge. Even his daughter, who is now nine years old, and her mother, Newdow's ex-girlfriend Sandra Banning, oppose the suit.
The unpopularity of his position doesn't escape Newdow. "Clearly, most people in this country believe in God," he says. But he emphasizes that the issue -- for him -- isn't about religious preferences.
"This case is saying that the government has no right to assert its religious beliefs on its people," he says. "And I think most people would agree with that."
Yet his arguments don't seem to carry much weight in legal circles. Most experts see little chance of a victory in the Supreme Court, even without the vote of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who recused himself after making public statements denouncing the ruling in California. The court may simply avoid the issue altogether by ruling that Newdow cannot bring such a suit without complete custody of his daughter.
An emergency room physician professionally, Newdow has obsessed over the idea of challenging the government's "God" references for years. His initial plan for a lawsuit didn't involve the Pledge of Allegiance. "I was looking at a coin -- the words 'In God We Trust'-- and I decided that it must not be constitutional," he said.
Not surprisingly, suing the government over a phrase on its currency can be difficult. But when his daughter began school in 2001, Newdow saw another chance. He sued the school district, submitting a brief using information he gathered surfing the Internet at home. When the court agreed to hear his case, he refused his appointed lawyer, opting instead to try passing the California bar exam..
"I didn't know anything about law," he says. "I didn't know how to file a brief."
He passed the bar, though, and argued his own case: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in his favor, declaring that the Pledge was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.
No matter what happens in the courts, Newdow has vaulted his beliefs into the nation's public discourse. Though he's quit work and has begun living off savings, he says he's spent less than $2,500 working on his case, mostly to photocopy thousands of pages of legal briefs and to pay the $150 fee to submit a brief. He relies on legal knowledge gained by reading late into the night on a website,
Freelaw.com
.
"It's the American system that allows that," he says. "It allows a person with $150 in their pocket and a computer to make change in the country and I think that's a wonderful thing." In addition, he's begun relying on volunteer attorneys, who Newdow credits as "helpful, since legally, I don't have any idea what I'm doing."
As Newdow points out, some of the most important progressive policy began with unpopular ideas. "That's why we have the Bill of Rights and the courts to uphold it," he says. "If we didn't, we never would have seen the end of segregation. Black people weren't the majority, but because of the Bill of Rights, the court had to listen to their voices."
Jonathan O'Connell is a policy associate at the Social Policy Action Network in Washington, DC.
