9th Circuit Explained

The Ninth Circuit generally has a liberal reputation, though its judges span the gamut from reliably liberal to moderate to socially and fiscally conservative. Like all federal judges, judges on the Ninth Circuit serve for life, and as a result their decisions may diverge sharply from the viewpoint of the president that nominated them. Accordingly, efforts to categorize judges based on their past political affiliation or nominating president are often fruitless. For example, the 2002 majority opinion in Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), rev'd sub nom. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), holding that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, was written by Senior Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Richard M. Nixon appointee.
Indeed, while the Ninth Circuit had long been instrumental in striking new legal ground, particularly in the areas of immigration law and prisoner rights, it was the Newdow decision that galvanized criticism against what conservatives saw as "judicial activism." The case was litigated by Michael Newdow, an atheist who felt that the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's school violated her First Amendment right to be free from government establishment of religion. In a 2-1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel held for Newdow, stating that "[t]he text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God." Reaction to the decision by prominent political leaders, especially those in the House and Senate, was nothing short of apoplectic. President George W. Bush, through his spokesman Ari Fleischer, called the ruling "ridiculous," while Senator Charles Grassley called it "crazy and outrageous." Even mainstream Democrats attacked the decision, with House minority leader Richard Gephardt calling it "poorly thought out." Criticisms of the Newdow decision were not limited to the substantive law considered by the judges who heard the case; they also attacked the legitimacy and political independence of the court itself. The result was a renewed focus on the Ninth Circuit's caseload and a targeted effort by congressional Republicans to minimize the impact of such decisions.