holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the statute declaring the national motto “In God We Trust” because the allegation that, because of the statute, the plaintiff is a “politi- cal outsider” and suffers “a stigmatic injury” “is insufficient to confer standing”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the statute declaring the national motto “In God We Trust” because the allegation that, because of the statute, the plaintiff is a “politi- cal outsider” and suffers “a stigmatic injury” “is insufficient to confer standing”
- holding that the “stigmatic injury” atheists suffered as political outsiders, due to a statute adopting “In God We Trust” as the national motto, is an abstract injury insufficient to confer standing
- holding that Establishment Clause challenge to the placement of “In God We Trust” on coins and currency was foreclosed by Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970)
- finding standing for the plaintiff to challenge the placement of the national motto “In God We Trust” on the currency
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result only:
The majority opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, 597 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.2010), which has today become the law of the circuit, fails to comprehend the constitutional principles set forth in the relevant Establishment Clause cases that the Supreme Court has decided in the years following our decision in Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir.1970). See Rio Linda dissent passim (Reinhardt, Circuit Judge). Because I am now required to follow that precedent, no matter how misguided, I am also now required to conclude that Newdow’s claims in this case are foreclosed by Aronow , and therefore to concur in the result. I do not express any view as to what result I might have reached in the absence of the numerous errors of constitutional law that the majority made in Rio Linda, and the erroneous result it reached.