# Newdow v. Lefevre

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 11, 2010 · 598 F.3d 638

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9412945

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael A. NEWDOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter LEFEVRE, Law Revision Counsel; United States of America; Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury; Henrietta Holsman Fore, Director, United States Mint; Thomas A. Ferguson, Director, Bureau of Engraving and Printing; The Congress of the United States of America, Defendants-Appellees, v. Pacific Justice Institute, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 11, 2010
- **Citations:** 598 F.3d 638; 2010 WL 816971
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Nelson, Reinhardt, Bea
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9412945

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- applying Allen even when the Plaintiff argued that he personally suffered harm as a result of the Government’s stigmatizing speech

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9412945. Public record. Not legal advice.