by Sarah Silverman

In December, I traveled to Washington, DC, where I stopped at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On that day, atheist lawyer and physician Dr. Michael Newdow was scheduled to present his oral argument in his appeal of Newdow v. Roberts, a religious liberty case against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and others responsible for the inauguration ceremony of President Barack Obama. There were 252 additional plaintiffs who joined Newdow in the suit, including myself and my father.

On January 20, 2009 Obama was sworn in by Roberts before a worldwide audience of millions. As the inaugural oath came to a close, Roberts added the words "So help you God?" to which Obama replied, "So help me God." Those words were never part of the oath specified in the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs' other concerns were the Christian-based invocation and benediction delivered by Reverends Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery. The plaintiffs seek to prevent future inaugurations from including these divisive and exclusionary elements.

The case was originally heard by Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, five days prior to the inauguration. He denied a preliminary injunction to stop Roberts from including the statement in the oath. Later, Walton found the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not identify any concrete and particularized injury. He questioned how the alleged harm could be redressed, considering the inauguration was over by then, and implied that his lower court could not issue an order against the Chief Justice of the United States.

During the oral argument in the appeal, Newdow explained to a panel of three judges how he and the other plaintiffs, especially the 40 child plaintiffs, had suffered a concrete injury by hearing the words "so help me God" and the Christian prayers. He spent the majority of his allotted time discussing how the plaintiffs did have standing in the case, and answering tough questions. Newdow emphasized how a permanent injunction would redress the harm, considering that these inaugural traditions would likely continue.

The defense attorney, Lowell Sturgill Jr. of the Justice Department, argued that since many of the plaintiffs watched the inauguration over the mass media, they lacked standing. He also claimed that it is speculation to assume future presidents-elect will wish to use the phrase "so help me God" in their oaths, or have religious invocations and benedictions.

Dr. Newdow's presentation was well-researched and strong in case history. He was witty in his responses, and thorough in his answers. Now we are waiting for the decision from the Court of Appeals. If we are granted standing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of the case, we will return to the District Court. If that is denied, we will appeal to the Supreme Court. There Roberts will likely recuse himself, and the hearing will be led by one of the eight remaining justices. I can only hope that, at the end of this long process, this example of religious indoctrination by public officials will be eradicated, and that our constitutional rights will be restored.

Sarah Silverman, of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, is a senior at the University of Pittsburgh where she is majoring in Applied Developmental Psychology. Currently, she works as an infant autism researcher for the Psychology Department and is a college member of Best Buddies International. Sarah has been a volunteer counselor at Camp Quest Ohio for the past four summers. Next year she will continue at the University of Pittsburgh for her M.Ed. in Special Education and Early Childhood Education.