He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God".
[7] After graduating from high school, Newdow attended Brown University, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in biology in 1974.
[13][14] On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.
[15] On page 60 of the ruling the court writes: "We hold that the California Education Code - 52720 and the School District's policy having teachers lead students in the recitation of the Pledge, and having those who do not wish to participate do so with impunity, do not violate the Establishment Clause.
"[citation needed] In a 2006 interview on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act,[16] Newdow told WERS-FM's David Goodman, "A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the U.S. Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.
"[citation needed] In June 2006, a federal judge rejected Newdow's Establishment Clause lawsuit on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and do not dictate anyone's beliefs.
[19] In an opinion concurring only in the judgment, even the extremely liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt[20] agreed that Aronow was controlling precedent.
[21] Newdow also filed a lawsuit in federal court after Franklin Graham gave the invocation at George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration.
[22] The lawsuit challenges the teaching of biblical events as historical facts and was brought by CAPEEM, which was formed by Hindu parents in California.
The Associated Press ran several reports including one picked up by The Washington Post and many other affiliates that inaccurately stated that the suit was an attempt by atheists to prevent the President from saying "so help me God."
[citation needed] Judge Reggie Walton refused to grant Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction, saying that as a district court judge, he did not feel he had the authority to issue such an order against the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,[25] and that the inclusion of such words is an exercise of the incoming President's right of free speech; although the president's right to express his private prayer in words of his choosing was specifically not challenged in the lawsuit, Chief Justice Roberts was served with a demand notice.
The outcome was that Mr. Obama did conclude with "So Help Me God" but the prompting was in the form of a query, indicating that this was his choice and not part of the constitutionally prescribed oath of office.
[citation needed] Newdow later reported that he would not challenge the denial of his preliminary injunction motion,[26] but would appeal the case through the appellate court.