The NY Times has an article hilighting the Newdow Pledge of Allegiance case which is to be argued before the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it could still be dismissed for lack of standing:



"A preliminary question, which will be part of the arguments on Wednesday, is whether Dr. Newdow, who was never married to the girl's mother and is not the custodial parent, has standing to pursue the case. The mother, Sandra L. Banning, has filed a brief supporting the pledge and her daughter's recitation of it. A decision that Dr. Newdow lacks standing would wipe out the lower court's ruling, but not the emotion the case has generated or the potential that a different plaintiff might renew the debate in the next case."



I hope they will decide the case on its merits. According to the custody order language, as discussed in the 9th Circuit opinion here:



"The child’s mother, Ms. Banning, to have sole legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and wel-fare of [the child]. Specifically, both parents shall consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to non-emergency major medical care, den-tal, optometry, psychological and educational needs of [the child]. If mutual agreement is not reached in the above, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal con-trol of [the child] that is not specifically prohibited or inconsistent with the physical custody order. The father shall have access to all of [the child’s] school and medical records."



On the standing issue, the 9th Circuit ruled that:



"We hold that a noncustodial parent, who retains some parental rights, may have standing to maintain a federal lawsuit to the extent that his assertion of retained parental rights under state law is not legally incom-patible with the custodial parent’s assertion of rights. This holding assumes, of course, that the noncustodial parent can establish an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the chal-lenged action, and it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."



We can only wait and see whether the US Supreme Ct will agree and decide the case on the merits.