FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDNewdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District (“EGUSD”) in California. In accordance with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (“the Pledge”). Code § 52720 (1989) (hereinafter “California statute”). [Appellant] has standing as a parent whose right to direct the religious training of her child is allegedly affected.”) (citation omitted). 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1532 (9th Cir.1985) (“Appellants have standing to challenge alleged violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment if they are directly affected by use of [the challenged book] in the English curriculum. The California Education Code requires that public schools begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises” and that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement. To implement the California statute, the school district that Newdow's daughter attends has promulgated a policy that states, in pertinent part: “Each elementary school class [shall] recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.” The classmates of Newdow's daughter in the EGUSD are led by their teacher in reciting the Pledge codified in federal law. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Pub.
Accordingly, a reversal of the order would result in the reinstatement of the complaint against the state. To satisfy standing requirements, a plaintiff must prove that “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. Although the previous form of the statute specifically allowed students to use the moment of silence for “meditation,” silent prayer was always an option. Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that standing is a jurisdictional requirement, the existence of which each federal court must determine for itself, see Lujan, 504 U. In sum, the amendment to the Alabama statute had no discernible effect on public school students other than to inform them that the state was encouraging them to engage in prayer during their daily moment of silence. Because the words that amended the Pledge were enacted into law by statute, the district court may not direct Congress to delete those words any more than it may order the President to take such action.