The Court refused the observation of the federal court in connection with the domestic issues of Newdow because a family court order already prevail to protects the legal rights of the Banning over her child. The court also observed that the verdict of the family court failed to take in account Newdow, “the next friend” to his daughter and the California Federal Court failed to restore the rights of him to direct his daughter on religious matters. In short the Supreme Court reestablished the rights of parent are to control their child in this issue and reviewed the states constitution in respect of the case validity
Newdow’s daughter is a student studying in an elementary school, as per the school syllabus the Pledge of Allegiance is the integral part of the syllabus. Joan stated that religious word came in the pledge dates back to the pre-development past of the nation but can be improve all things as a gradual historical process, at the same time the relation with such a word only for 50 moments can be ignore, he says “The phrase "under God," conceived and added at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now, represents a tolerable attempt to acknowledge religion and to invoke its solemnizing power without favoring any50sect or belief system” (Delfattore, 2006).
The school day begins with the oath. Her father is an atheist who submitted a petition before the court, complain the clause in the words of pledge “ under God” , he further argued that the particular clause is breach of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses provided by the constitution therefore the particular word (i.e., “under God”) instructed to follow a religious ground to her daughter.Besides that, he explained the court, the petition lodged before the court to protect his own constitutional right and the